Defensible Deletion: The Cornerstone of Intelligent Information Governance
The struggle to stay above the rising tide of information is a constant battle for organizations. Not only are the costs and logistics associated with data storage more troubling than ever, but so are the potential legal consequences. Indeed, the news headlines are constantly filled with horror stories of jury verdicts, court judgments and unreasonable settlements involving organizations that failed to effectively address their data stockpiles. While there are no quick or easy solutions to these problems, an ever increasing method for effectively dealing with these issues is through an organizational strategy referred to as defensible deletion. A defensible deletion strategy could refer to many items. But at its core, defensible deletion is a comprehensive approach that companies implement to reduce the storage costs and legal risks associated with the retention of electronically stored information (ESI). Organizations that have done so have been successful in avoiding court sanctions while at the same time eliminating ESI that has little or no business value. The first step to implementing a defensible deletion strategy is for organizations to ensure that they have a top-down plan for addressing data retention. This typically requires that their information governance principals – legal and IT – are cooperating with each other. These departments must also work jointly with records managers and business units to decide what data must be kept and for what length of time. All such stakeholders in information retention must be engaged and collaborate if the organization is to create a workable defensible deletion strategy. Cooperation between legal and IT naturally leads the organization to establish records retention policies, which carry out the key players’ decisions on data preservation. Such policies should address the particular needs of an organization while balancing them against litigation requirements. Not only will that enable a company to reduce its costs by decreasing data proliferation, it will minimize a company’s litigation risks by allowing it to limit the amount of potentially relevant information available for current and follow-on litigation. In like manner, legal should work with IT to develop a process for how the organization will address document preservation during litigation. This will likely involve the designation of officials who are responsible for issuing a timely and comprehensive litigation hold to custodians and data sources. This will ultimately help an organization avoid the mistakes that often plague document management during litigation. The Role of Technology in Defensible Deletion In the digital age, an essential aspect of a defensible deletion strategy is technology. Indeed, without innovations such as archiving software and automated legal hold acknowledgements, it will be difficult for an organization to achieve its defensible deletion objectives. On the information management side of defensible deletion, archiving software can help enforce organization retention policies and thereby reduce data volume and related storage costs. This can be accomplished with classification tools, which intelligently analyze and tag data content as it is ingested into the archive. By so doing, organizations may retain information that is significant or that otherwise must be kept for business, legal or regulatory purposes – and nothing else. An archiving solution can also reduce costs through efficient data storage. By expiring data in accordance with organization retention policies and by using single instance storage to eliminate ESI duplicates, archiving software frees up space on company servers for the retention of other materials and ultimately leads to decreased storage costs. Moreover, it also lessens litigation risks as it removes data available for future litigation. On the eDiscovery side of defensible deletion, an eDiscovery platform with the latest in legal hold technology is often essential for enabling a workable litigation hold process. Effective platforms enable automated legal hold acknowledgements on various custodians across multiple cases. This allows organizations to confidently place data on hold through a single user action and eliminates concerns that ESI may slip through the proverbial cracks of manual hold practices. Organizations are experiencing every day the costly mistakes of delaying implementation of a defensible deletion program. This trend can be reversed through a common sense defensible deletion strategy which, when powered by effective, enabling technologies, can help organizations decrease the costs and risks associated with the information explosion.
Gartner Publishes eDiscovery MarketScope (Pre-Cursor To eDiscovery Magic Quadrant)
Earlier today, Gartner published its eDiscovery MarketScope for 2009. Written by Debra Logan, John Bace, and Whit Andrews, it is perhaps the most comprehensive "buyers guide" available for companies interested in using electronic discovery technology to lower costs. The eDiscovery MarketScope analyzes about 20 software companies focused on electronic data discovery. Based on extensive interviews with end customers and data from the companies themselves, Gartner rates the companies using criteria similar to those used in its famous Magic Quadrant reports. It also identifies market trends, and makes predictions for 2009 and beyond. This report is required reading for anyone considering an investment in eDiscovery software, and I strongly recommend that you get a copy, either from Gartner or some other authorized source. To give you a flavor for Gartner's analysis, a few of its main conclusions are as follows: 1. Bringing eDiscovery In-House Dramatically Reduces Cost This is a claim that electronic discovery software vendors often make, and prospective customers rightly question. Gartner investigates and finds that many of its corporate clients are saving large amounts of money by using eDiscovery software to reduce the amount they spend on lawyers and legal service providers. It reports that customers typically recover their money from buying eDiscovery software within 3-6 months of implementation. 2. There's No Single, End-To-End Solution For eDiscovery Gartner addresses what is probably the most common question I get asked by corporate counsels and litigation support managers - namely, "Isn't there a single product I can buy that will do end-to-end eDiscovery, covering all aspects of the EDRM?" The answer, of course, is "no" and Gartner goes further by predicting that the answer will remain "no" until at least 2011. So, for the foreseeable future, customers will need to buy best-of-breed products from different vendors for different stages of the EDRM model, and ensure they integrate smoothly. 3. There Are 4 Leading eDiscovery Software Companies Company Product Clearwell Clearwell E-Discovery Platform FTI Attenex, RingTail Symantec Discovery Accelerator Zylab E-Discovery Management Module List of vendors achieving highest rating of "strong positive" (from Figure 2, page 10) Of all the companies it analyzed, Gartner only gives 4 its highest rating of "strong positive". Each of the four has different strengths. For processing, analysis and review, Clearwell is "fast-to-install and easy-to-use" (page 12) , while FTI's ability to offer Attenex / RingTail either hosted or on-premise "positions it well for the future" (page 13) . Symantec's leadership in email archiving makes Discovery Accelerator a good option for its customers who need to search and export data from Enterprise Vault. Finally, Zylab is well-known within law-enforcement circles and has a strong presence in Europe and Asia. 4. There Will Be Consolidation In The Next 12 Months As the market matures, Gartner predicts that as many as 25% of eDiscovery software providers will either merge, be acquired, or exit the business. Access Data's ambitious bid for Guidance has publicly put Guidance in play. Beyond that, Gartner suggests that Kazeon and several other players are all likely acquisition targets for larger companies wishing to enter the eDiscovery space. Of course, Gartner is not the only influential voice in eDiscovery. Earlier this year, George Socha and Tom Gelbmann published their Socha-Gelbmann Survey, which also provides a valuable perspective on the market. How do the two reports compare? That will be the subject of my next post.
Email Isn't eDiscovery Top Dog Any Longer, Recent Survey Finds
Symantec today issued the findings of its second annual Information Retention and eDiscovery Survey, which examined how enterprises are coping with the tsunami of electronically stored information (ESI) that we see expanding by the minute. Perhaps counter intuitively, the survey of legal and IT personnel at 2,000 enterprises found that email is no longer the primary source of ESI companies produced in response to eDiscovery requests. In fact, email came in third place (58%) to files/documents (67%) and database/application data (61%). Marking a departure from the landscape as recently as a few years ago, the survey reveals that email does not axiomatically equal eDiscovery any longer. Some may react incredulously to these results. For instance, noted eDiscovery expert Ralph Losey continues to stress the paramount importance of email: “In the world of employment litigation it is all about email and attachments and other informal communications. That is not to say databases aren't also sometimes important. They can be, especially in class actions. But, the focus of eDiscovery remains squarely on email.” While it’s hard to argue with Ralph, the real takeaway should be less about the relative descent of email’s importance, and more about the ascendency of other data types (including social media), which now have an unquestioned seat at the table. The primary ramification is that organizations need to prepare for eDiscovery and governmental inquires by casting a wider ESI net, including social media, cloud data, instant messaging and structured data systems. Forward-thinking companies should map out where all ESI resides company-wide so that these important sources do not go unrecognized. Once these sources of potentially responsive ESI are accounted for, the right eDiscovery tools need to be deployed so that these disparate types of ESI can be defensibly collected and processed for review in a singular, efficient and auditable environment. The survey also found that companies which employ best practices such as implementing information retention plans, automating the enforcement of legal holds and leveraging archiving tools instead of relying on backups, fare dramatically better when it comes to responding to eDiscovery requests. Companies in the survey with good information governance hygiene were: 81% more likely to have a formal retention plan in place 63% more likely to automate legal holds 50% more likely to use a formal archiving tool These top-tier companies in the survey were able to respond much faster and more successfully to an eDiscovery request, often suffering fewer negative consequences: 78% less likely to be sanctioned 47% less likely to lead to a compromised legal position 45% less likely to disclose too much information This last bullet (disclosing too much information) has a number of negative ramifications beyond just giving the opposition more ammo than is strictly necessary. Since much of the eDiscovery process is volume-based, particularly the eyes-on review component, every extra gigabyte of produced information costs the organization in both seen and unseen ways. Some have estimated that it costs between $3-5 a document for manual attorney review - and at 50,000 pages to a gigabyte, these data-related expenses can really add up quickly. On the other side of the coin, there were those companies with bad information governance hygiene. While this isn’t terribly surprising, it is shocking to see how many entities fail to connect the dots between information governance and risk reduction. Despite the numerous risks, the survey found nearly half of the respondents did not have an information retention plan in place, and of this group, only 30% were discussing how to do so. Most shockingly, 14% appear to be ostriches with their heads in the sand and have no plans to implement any retention plan whatsoever. When asked why folks weren’t taking action, respondents indicated lack of need (41%), too costly (38%), nobody has been chartered with that responsibility (27%), don’t have time (26%) and lack of expertise (21%) as top reasons. While I get the cost issue, particularly in these tough economic times, it’s bewildering to think that so many companies feel immune from the requirements of having even a basic retention plan. As the saying goes, “You don’t need to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.” And, the winds of change are upon us. Treating eDiscovery as a repeatable business process isn’t a Herculean task, but it is one that cannot be accomplished without good information governance hygiene and the profound recognition that email isn’t the only game in town. For more information regarding good records management hygiene, check out this informative video blog and Contoural article.Spotlighting the Top Electronic Discovery Cases from 2012
With the New Year quickly approaching, it is worth reflecting on some of the key eDiscovery developments that have occurred during 2012. While legislative, regulatory and rulemaking bodies have undoubtedly impacted eDiscovery, the judiciary has once again played the most dramatic role. There are several lessons from the top 2012 court cases that, if followed, will likely help organizations reduce the costs and risks associated with eDiscovery. These cases also spotlight the expectations that courts will likely have for organizations in 2013 and beyond. Implementing a Defensible Deletion Strategy Case: Brigham Young University v. Pfizer, 282 F.R.D. 566 (D. Utah 2012) In Brigham Young, the plaintiff university had pressed for sanctions as a result of Pfizer’s destruction of key documents pursuant to its information retention policies. The court rejected that argument because such a position failed to appreciate the basic workings of a valid corporate retention schedule. As the court reasoned, “[e]vidence may simply be discarded as a result of good faith business procedures.” When those procedures operate to inadvertently destroy evidence before the duty to preserve is triggered, the court held that sanctions should not issue: “The Federal Rules protect from sanctions those who lack control over the requested materials or who have discarded them as a result of good faith business procedures.” Summary: The Brigham Young case is significant since it emphasizes that organizations should implement a defensible deletion strategy to rid themselves of data stockpiles. Absent a preservation duty or other exceptional circumstances, organizations that pare back ESI pursuant to “good faith business procedures” (such as a neutral retention policy) will be protected from sanctions. **Another Must-Read Case: Danny Lynn Elec. v. Veolia Es Solid Waste (M.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2012) Issuing a Timely and Comprehensive Litigation Hold Case: Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, --- F. Supp. 2d. --- (N.D. Cal. 2012) Summary: The court first issued an adverse inference instruction against Samsung to address spoliation charges brought by Apple. In particular, the court faulted Samsung for failing to circulate a comprehensive litigation hold instruction when it first anticipated litigation. This eventually culminated in the loss of emails from several key Samsung custodians, inviting the court’s adverse inference sanction. Ironically, however, Apple was subsequently sanctioned for failing to issue a proper hold notice. Just like Samsung, Apple failed to distribute a hold until several months after litigation was reasonably foreseeable. The tardy hold instruction, coupled with evidence suggesting that Apple employees were “encouraged to keep the size of their email accounts below certain limits,” ultimately led the court to conclude that Apple destroyed documents after its preservation duty ripened. The Lesson for 2013: The Apple case underscores the importance of issuing a timely and comprehensive litigation hold notice. For organizations, this likely means identifying the key players and data sources that may have relevant information and then distributing an intelligible hold instruction. It may also require suspending aspects of information retention policies to preserve relevant ESI. By following these best practices, organizations can better avoid the sanctions bogeyman that haunts so many litigants in eDiscovery. **Another Must-Read Case: Chin v. Port Authority of New York, 685 F.3d 135 (2 nd Cir. 2012) Judicial Approval of Predictive Coding Case: Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, --- F.R.D. --- (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012) Summary: The court entered an order that turned out to be the first of its kind: approving the use of predictive coding technology in the discovery phase of litigation. That order was entered pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, which provided that defendant MSL Group could use predictive coding in connection with its obligation to produce relevant documents. Pursuant to that order, the parties methodically (yet at times acrimoniously) worked over several months to fine tune the originally developed protocol to better ensure the production of relevant documents by defendant MSL. The Lesson for 2013: The court declared in its order that predictive coding “is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.” Nevertheless, the court also made clear that this technology is not the exclusive method now for conducting document review. Instead, predictive coding should be viewed as one of many different types of tools that often can and should be used together. ** Another Must-Read Case: In Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Prods. Liab. Litig. (W.D. La. July 10, 2012) Proportionality and Cooperation are Inextricably Intertwined Case: Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 279 F.R.D. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) Summary: The court ordered the defendant accounting firm (KPMG) to preserve thousands of employee hard drives. The firm had argued that the high cost of preserving the drives was disproportionate to the value of the ESI stored on the drives. Instead of preserving all of the drives, the firm hoped to maintain a reduced sample, asserting that the ESI on the sample drives would satisfy the evidentiary demands of the plaintiffs’ class action claims. The court rejected the proportionality argument primarily because the firm refused to permit plaintiffs or the court to analyze the ESI found on the drives. Without any transparency into the contents of the drives, the court could not weigh the benefits of the discovery against the alleged burdens of preservation. The court was thus left to speculate about the nature of the ESI on the drives, reasoning that it went to the heart of plaintiffs’ class action claims. As the district court observed, the firm may very well have obtained the relief it requested had it engaged in “good faith negotiations” with the plaintiffs over the preservation of the drives. The Lesson for 2013: The Pippins decision reinforces a common refrain that parties seeking the protection of proportionality principles must engage in reasonable, cooperative discovery conduct. Staking out uncooperative positions in the name of zealous advocacy stands in sharp contrast to proportionality standards and the cost cutting mandate of Rule 1. Moreover, such a tactic may very well foreclose proportionality considerations, just as it did in Pippins. **Another Must-Read Case: Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012) Conclusion There were any number of other significant cases from 2012 that could have made this list. We invite you to share your favorites in the comments section or contact us directly with your feedback.Breaking News: Recusal Motion in Da Silva Moore Case Denied
In what might be characterized as the most anticipated ruling in the eDiscovery world over the past several months, the district court in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe today denied the plaintiffs’ motion to recuse the Honorable Andrew Peck as the assigned magistrate to that action. In rejecting the plaintiffs’ recusal request, United States District Court Judge Andrew Carter held that “Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review, reached upon consideration of the applicable law, was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias.” Judge Carter’s decision is particularly significant as it leaves undisturbed Judge Peck’s orders regarding the use of predictive coding and his declaration that computer-assisted review in eDiscovery is “acceptable in appropriate cases.” Moreover, Judge Carter gave another judicial imprimatur to predictive coding with his determination that it “does not inherently favor one party over the other in this case.” With today’s ruling, Judge Carter has perhaps finally brought to a close the contentious sideshow that nearly overshadowed the first known case involving the use of predictive coding in eDiscovery. With its potential to reduce the costs and delays associated with the review of ESI, predictive coding holds incredible promise for the future of eDiscovery.They’re Here…. 7th Circuit Mock Hearing & Panel Discussion Videos on Predictive Coding
The 7 th Circuit Pilot Program sponsored an educational mock hearing and expert panel discussion in Chicago last May to tackle important issues related to the use of predictive coding technology. The long awaited video footage of the event is finally here and available for review courtesy of Symantec. The event begins with U.S. Chief Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, James F. Holderman, welcoming a courtroom packed full of people eager to learn more about novel issues presented by increased usage of predictive coding technology in litigation. National Archives Director of Litigation, Jason R. Baron, follows with opening remarks about the role of information retrieval in eDiscovery to set the stage for a lively mock hearing and panel discussion about a number of hot topics related to the use of predictive coding technology. Notable speakers include Maura R. Grossman, Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Dr. David Lewis, co-founder of the TREC Legal Track; Ralph Losey, Partner at Jackson Lewis; Matt Nelson, eDiscovery Counsel at Symantec; Jeff Sharer, Partner at Sidley Austin; andMartin T. Tully, Partner and National eDiscovery Practice Group Chair, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. The hypothetical hearing centers on a dispute between parties to a patent litigation matter regarding the use of predictive coding technology. Plaintiffs argue defendants should use predictive coding technology to assist with the production and review of documents. Defendants counter that they have a process in place for responding to discovery requests that is sufficient and that includes the use of legal technology approaches like keyword search that are commonly used during discovery. The hearing participants take positions (not necessarily their own) about important issues such as the reliability of predictive coding technology, steps needed to establish a protocol that is fair to both parties, and cost shifting. Ralph Losey does an excellent job playing the role of “judge” and summarizes key arguments made by each party before ruling from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing. Following the mock hearing, Losey and others debated important issues related to the use of predictive coding as part of a lively panel discussion. The panel discussion covered a broad range of interesting issues, but some of the liveliest discussion related to the following topics: Should parties be required to disclose their use of predictive coding technology? Is it appropriate to use keyword searches to cull electronically stored information (ESI) prior to using predictive coding technology? Could the misapplication of statistics be the downfall of predictive coding? The mock argument and panel discussion are among several excellent resources practitioners should consider reviewing to help them navigate a rapidly shifting and sometimes confusing predictive coding technology landscape. Please feel free to share your comments and feedback below and be sure to visit the 7 th Circuit Pilot Program’s homepage for more information about the group’s efforts to help clarify some of the most complex and important eDiscovery issues facing litigators today. This post was co-authored by Symantec's Allison Walton, eDiscovery CounselWould Rule Changes Alleviate eDiscovery Burdens?
You have heard this one before. Changes to the Federal Rules are in the works that could alleviate the eDiscovery burdens of organizations. Greeting this news with skepticism would probably be justified. After all, many feel that the last set of amendments failed to meet the hype of streamlining the discovery process to make litigation costs more reasonable. Others, while not declaring the revised Rules a failure, nonetheless believe that the amendments have been doomed by the lack of adherence among counsel and the courts. Regardless of the differing perspectives, there seems to be agreement on both sides that the Rules have spawned more collateral disputes than ever before about the preservation and collection of ESI. What is different this time is that the latest set of proposed amendments could offer a genuine opportunity for organizations to slash the costs of document preservation and collection. Chief among these changes would be a revised Rule 37(e). The current iteration of this rule is designed to protect companies from court sanctions when the programmed operation of their computer systems automatically destroys ESI. Nevertheless, the rule has largely proved ineffective as a national standard because it did not apply to pre-litigation information destruction activities. As a result, courts often bypassed the rule’s protections to punish companies who negligently, though not nefariously, destroyed documents before a lawsuit was filed. The current proposal to amend Rule 37(e) (see page 127) would substantially broaden the existing protection against sanctions. The proposal would shield an organization’s pre-litigation destruction of information from sanctions except where that destruction was “willful or in bad faith and caused substantial prejudice in the litigation” or “irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity to present a claim or defense.” In making a determination on this issue, courts would be forced to examine the enterprise’s information retention protocols through more than just the lens of litigation. Instead, they would have to consider the nature and motives behind a company’s decision-making process. Such factors include: The extent to which the party was on notice that litigation was likely The reasonableness and proportionality of the party’s efforts to preserve the information The nature and scope of any request received to preserve information Whether the party sought timely judicial guidance regarding any preservation disputes By seeking to punish only nefarious conduct and by ensuring that the analysis includes a broad range of considerations, organizations could finally have a fighting chance to reduce the costs and risks of preservation. Despite the promise this proposal holds, there is concern among some of the eDiscovery cognoscenti that provisions in the draft proposal to amend Rule 37(e) could water down its intended protections. Robert Owen, a partner at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and a leading eDiscovery thought leader, has recently authored an insightful articlethat spotlights some of these issues. Among other things, Owen points out that the “irreparably deprived” provision could end up diluting the “bad faith” standard. This could ultimately provide activist jurists with an opportunity to re-introduce a negligence standard through the backdoor, which would be a troubling development for clients, counsel and the courts. These issues and others confirm the difficulty of establishing national standards to address the factual complexities of many eDiscovery issues. They also point to the difficult path that the Civil Rules Advisory Committee still must travel before a draft of Rule 37(e) can be finalized for public comment. Even assuming that stage can be reached after the next rules committee meeting in April 2013, additional changes could still be forthcoming to address the concerns of other constituencies. Stay tuned; the debate over revisions to Rule 37(e) and its impact on organizations’ defensible deletion efforts is far from over.The Global Impact of eDiscovery and Data Protection Laws in Germany
The acknowledged power of Continental Europe is Germany. Its steady economy and stable politics offer foreign companies an inviting prospect for investment. And yet, as organizations explore and begin developing business opportunities in Germany, they often become entangled in a web of unfamiliar legal issues. These issues, particularly eDiscovery and data protection laws, can be a costly and time consuming trap for unsuspecting companies. To avoid becoming ensnared by legal minutiae, attorney fees and lost opportunities, companies should consider gaining at least a basic understanding regarding the German eDiscovery and data protection landscape. Discovery in Germany By way of introduction, it should be noted that Germany, like most European countries, is a civil code country whose legal traditions are distinct from the common law notions that characterize the United States. According to its legal precepts, civil litigation in Germany is conducted in a vastly different fashion than in the U.S. For example, “discovery,” as it is known in the United States, does not exist in Germany. Interrogatories, categorical document requests and requests for admissions are simply unavailable as discovery devices. Instead, Germany only allows a limited exchange of documents, with the parties typically only disclosing information that supports their claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently commented on this key distinction when it observed in Heraeus Kulzer v. Biomet that “the German legal system . . . does not authorize discovery in the sense of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The court went on to explain that “[a] party to a German lawsuit cannot demand categories of documents from his opponent. All he can demand are documents that he is able to identify specifically—individually, not by category.” Another key distinction to discovery in Germany is the lack of rules or case law requiring the preservation of ESI or paper documents. This stands in sharp contrast to American jurisprudence, which typically requires organizations to preserve information as soon as they “reasonably anticipate” litigation. Data Protection in Germany Another critical, distinguishing characteristic of Germany’s legal traditions are its notions of data protection and individual privacy. Unlike the mostly laissez-faire approach in the U.S. to data protection, Germany has adopted a comprehensive framework to secure personal information from unreasonable government and corporate intrusions. To guard against such intrusions, Germany has strict requirements that govern any “processing” of personal information. In addition, corporate data processing in Germany must satisfy company Works Councils, which represent the interests of employees and protect their privacy rights. Those protections extend to domestic litigation and international data transfers, to which Works Councils and company Data Protection Officers may object. Another important aspect to German data protection laws are the restrictions they place on transferring personal information across international borders. Companies with offices in Germany must ensure that the country where such data will be transferred has enacted laws that meet EU data protection standards. Transfers of personal data to countries that do not meet those standards are generally forbidden, with substantial fines imposed for non-compliance. This backdrop of complexity suggests that companies exploring business opportunities in Germany should obtain a better understanding of its discovery and data protection laws. There are various resources that provide straightforward answers to these issues at no cost to the end-user. For example, global legal expert James Daley recently recorded two podcasts that discuss the challenges associated with German discovery and data privacy laws. Think tanks such as The Sedona Conference have also made available materials that provide significant detail on these issues, including its “International Overview of Discovery, Data Privacy, and Disclosure Requirements.” By obtaining a greater awareness of the legal workings inside Germany, organizations can more capably develop a cooperative, proactive process for how they will address data preservation and production for cross-border litigation. By so doing, organizations can be better prepared to address potential eDiscovery and data protection snares that are inextricably intertwined with globalization.Symantec Positioned Highest in Execution and Vision in Gartner Archiving MQ
Once again Gartner has named Symantec as a leader in the Enterprise Information Archiving magic quadrant. We’ve continued to invest significantly in this market and it is gratifying to see the recognition for the continued effort we put into archiving both in the cloud and on premises with our Enterprise Vault.cloud and Enterprise Vault products. Symantec has now been rated a leader 9 years in a row. This graphic was published by Gartner, Inc. as part of a larger research document and should be evaluated in the context of the entire document. The Gartner document is available upon request from Symantec. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in the Magic Quadrant, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. This year marks a transition in a couple of regards. We are seeing an acceleration of customers looking for the convenience and simplicity of SaaS based archiving solution. The caveat being that they want the security and trust that only a vendor like Symantec can deliver. Similarly the market has continued to ask for integrated solutions that deliver information archiving and eDiscovery to quickly address often complex and time sensitive process of litigation and regulatory requests. The deep integration we offer between our archiving solutions – Enterprise Vault and Enterprise Vault.cloud –and the Clearwell eDiscovery Platform has led many customers to deploy these together to streamline their eDiscovery workflow. An archive is inherently deployed with the long term in mind. Over the history of Gartner’s Enterprise Information Archiving MQ, only Symantec has provided a consistent solution to customers by investing and innovating with Enterprise Vault to lead the industry in performance, functionality, and support without painful migrations or changes. We’re excited about what we have planned next for Enterprise Vault and Enterprise Vault.cloud and intend to maintain our leadership in the years to come. Our customers will continue to be able to manage their critical information assets and meet their needs for eDiscovery and Information Governance as we improve our products year after year.
