What’s the hype about hyperlinked documents? Ryan Hemmel of ProSearch discusses best practices on dealing with them in this post!
In his post titled (wait for it!) What’s the Hype about Hyperlinked Documents? (available here), Ryan recaps a recent ACEDS webinar where he and Luke Groth explained hyperlinked documents and offered best practices on dealing with this content in eDiscovery workflows.
Here’s their definition of a hyperlinked document:
“A hyperlinked document is shared via a URL or link, directing the recipient to a file stored on a cloud server. Unlike traditional attachments, the underlying file is not transmitted to the recipient but remains under the sender’s control. This distinction is crucial for eDiscovery because it affects how documents are collected, reviewed, and produced. For example, while a traditional attachment is static and unchangeable once sent, a hyperlinked document can be edited continuously, with recipients always seeing the latest version.”
The shift to hyperlinked documents introduces several complications in the eDiscovery process. Here’s one of them:
Search Limitations: Early case assessment (ECA) and filtering tools often cannot search the content of hyperlinked files. These documents must be downloaded first to be searchable, complicating the discovery process and potentially leading to incomplete data collection.
So, what are three other complications that hyperlinked files introduce? And what are four best practices for dealing with them? Find out here, it’s just one more click! Don’t be afraid – it’s just a hyperlinked document! 😀
So, what do you think? Do you think there’s enough hype about hyperlinked documents yet? 😀 Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Image created using Bing Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot holding a checklist and checking items on the list”.
Disclosure: ProSearch is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.
Discover more from eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hyperlinked items are not always “under Sender’s control.” It could be an item that Sender simply, at the time the message was sent, has read-only access to and Sender is unable to edit/move/delete the item. Examples might include a shared drive within the Sender’s organization or a colleague’s MyDrive/OneDrive. The link could point to an item outside of the Sender’s organization/domain/tenant as well. And just because the Sender included the hyperlink in the message, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Sender has *ever* had access to the item or even seen the content of the item at all. Perhaps splitting hairs here, but the “remains under sender’s control” verbiage might need some reconsideration. Maybe something more generic like “remains in a state where alteration, movement, or deletion may occur” without specifically tying that capability to the Sender alone.