Brandon D’Agostino of Cloudficient says that identification is the nexus of defensibility in eDiscovery. Here’s why that’s the case.

As discussed in his post titled (wait for it!) Why Identification is the Nexus of Defensibility in eDiscovery (available here), Brandon notes that spoliation tends to get lumped in with failed preservation efforts, and while this is technically true, the real culprit is usually improper or incomplete identification. Here are a few examples we have seen a lot of recently:

• Mobile device settings not changed from defaults resulting in ephemeral messaging data being deleted every 30 days
• Chat data not adequately preserved – again, settings not changed to prevent automatic deletion, or the licensing level of the platform does not allow for proper eDiscovery operations to be performed
• Additional custodians not identified timely (or at all), so data is not preserved
• Custodian self-collection is not adequately supervised

In each of these scenarios, more rigorous or robust identification would yield more defensible results. While we as practitioners cannot force clients to comply, better identification would lead to better outcomes in most cases.

So, what is the “static custodian myth”? What defines scope more accurately than repositories? And how can Context-Aware eDiscovery help? Find out here, it’s only one click! Failing to click is indefensible! 😉

So, what do you think? Is your organization struggling with modern data challenges? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using Microsoft Designer, using the term “robot lawyer wearing a suit looking to jump across a canyon”.

Disclosure: Cloudficient 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.