Tag: Slack

1
First Pittsburgh “Under the Wire” CLE Seminar Features Presentation on E-Discovery “Hot Topics”
2
Electronic Discovery Institute Article – “The New e-Discovery Wild West: Slack, Teams, Zoom, and Other Collaboration Technologies”
3
K&L Gates Arbitration World Podcast: Virtual Collaboration Tools and their e-Discovery Implications in Arbitration and Litigation
4
Benebone LLC v. Pet Qwerks, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021)
5
Laub v. Horbaczewski (C.D. Cal. 2020)

First Pittsburgh “Under the Wire” CLE Seminar Features Presentation on E-Discovery “Hot Topics”

The Pittsburgh office of K&L Gates recently hosted its first “Under the Wire” CLE seminar on November 15th, 2022. The CLE seminar was the first of a new series of in-person CLE events hosted at the K&L Gates Pittsburgh office.

At the inaugural seminar, Daniel Miller (a partner in our e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) practice group) and Laura Veith (an associate focusing on commercial litigation) presented on a number of e-discovery “hot topics.” The presentation emphasized how record preservation and collection efforts must adapt in light of clients’ increasing use of new technologies, including mobile devices and applications present on those devices, ephemeral messaging, and enterprise collaboration platforms, such as Microsoft Teams and Slack.

Electronic Discovery Institute Article – “The New e-Discovery Wild West: Slack, Teams, Zoom, and Other Collaboration Technologies”

The pandemic has spawned many new and exciting innovations, but many of those innovations have also created new risks.  One such risk — and often a very material one — is that employees working at home have created a new “Wild West” of e-discovery and data storage, where pandemic pioneers working in their homestead offices may have inadvertently escaped the well-controlled data storage environment in place in their workplace.

Read More

K&L Gates Arbitration World Podcast: Virtual Collaboration Tools and their e-Discovery Implications in Arbitration and Litigation

In a recent K&L Gates Arbitration World podcast, Julie Anne Halter (a partner in our Seattle office and co-chair of our e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) practice group) and Martin King (a partner in our London office who focuses on international arbitration and complex commercial litigation and disputes) discussed virtual collaboration tools like Slack and Microsoft Teams and the e-discovery challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls these tools may present in the context of arbitration and litigation

Benebone LLC v. Pet Qwerks, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to produce Slack messages used as part of its internal business communications. Despite the potentially 30,000 Slack messages to review, the court found compelling the testimony from defendants’ forensic expert who stated there are a number of tools and software vendors that have streamlined review and production of Slack messages. Further, searches could be limited to certain Slack channels, users and custodians to very streamline the volume of messages for review. Thus, “requiring review and production of Slack messages by Benebone is generally comparable to requiring search and production of emails and is not unduly burdensome or disproportional to the needs of this case – if the requests and searches are appropriately limited and focused.”

Nature of Case: Intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Slack messages

Case Summary

Laub v. Horbaczewski (C.D. Cal. 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought Slack messages and defendants claimed they did not have access to the messages because of its level of Slack plan. The court instructed plaintiffs to pursue the Slack messages through a third party subpoena and defendants objected to the overbroad scope of the subpoena. The court concluded plaintiffs “credibly argued” that the Slack messages “may be relevant to the issues involved in this case,” but found that the request was not proportional to the needs of the case under the second prong of Rule 26(b)(1) because: (1) The defendants did not have access to the messages and requiring them to produce the messages would impose an undue burden and expense, and (2) the messages would likely be cumulative because the record was “replete with evidence of Plaintiffs’ involvement” and plaintiffs “offer no evidence that the private messages contain any novel or noteworthy information that warrant compelling their production.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Instant messages

Case Summary

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.