Category Archives: law firm

June 13, 2023 · 10:14 AM

Law Firms Are Demanding Native, Post-Level Collection of Social Media Evidence to Support Standard Review and Analytics Workflows

By John Patzakis

Two months ago, X1 launched version 7 of our X1 Social Discovery social media and web collections solution. This major upgrade features a new cutting-edge Instagram connector, along with our revamped Facebook support, where all our users now have native post-level collection and parsing to ensure accuracy, key metadata collection, court authentication, and evidentiary completeness of the collected data. As stated by X1 CEO Larry Gill: “Nothing short of those capabilities is acceptable and that is why I can confidently say that X1 Social Discovery is the only solution in the industry capable of delivering all those requirements.”

Version 7 has been a huge success, with record sales seen since its release. In fact, in speaking recently with several attorneys at top law firms, it’s very clear both how important such native post-level collection is in order to support standard attorney review and data analytics workflows, and that there is a disconnect with some practitioners who are utilizing alternative web plug-in based screen shot generation tools that do not support these now basic but essential requirements.

It is very important to understand the unique ability of X1 Social Discovery to perform post-level native collection of each social media post. This means that the social media post is collected in its native format and parsed so that it has its own associated metadata, photos, indexed text and in-line comments. This allows for the individual Facebook or Instagram posts, Tweets, etc. to be searched, filtered, tagged, and exported individually at the post-level with all associated metadata and comments inline. The ability with X1 to tag, sort, authenticate (with individually associated hash values), and upload individual posts by up to thousands at a time without manual processing into an attorney review platform is essential for an efficient and scalable workflow. And X1 is the only solution that can deliver this critical functionality.

In contrast, the web plug-in tools generate flat file image PDFs as its final output. So, if there are 30 posts that are in a feed, a single monolithic image PDF will be generated as the collection output. These bulk screenshots are of very limited value as they are not collected in native format, retain no post-level metadata, and are not searchable (absent a secondary and inferior OCR process). This output is practically useless for a review platform (as the entire output is one object).

Additionally, as we all know, AI-based analytics is a game-changing capability that is now a standard feature of the leading eDiscovery review platforms. However, ESI must be properly collected in order to support such AI. Semantic AI engines ingest and analyze the extracted text and metadata of individual emails, electronic documents, social media posts and web pages. Only X1 Social Discovery collects full text & post-level metadata and performs and maintains the collection at the individual object-level, all of which is necessary to support upstream AI analysis. Using the web plug-in tools is a decision to not use AI on your case for social media and website evidence.

Another key differentiator is that X1 Social Discovery is a robust software application that can be installed on a computer, including virtual cloud servers. This enables X1 to take advantage of the full CPU and RAM resources available to address heavy workloads as needed with multi-threading capabilities. As a result, X1 can run multiple collections at the same time, auto-expand and auto-scroll across thousands of posts, and collect posts with thousands of comments. For instance, a web crawl collection, a Facebook collection, and a YouTube collection can be run at the same time. Data can be reviewed and analyzed immediately as it populates.

Further, social media collections often involve thousands of posts with hundreds of associated comments and multiple images. This requires adequate resources to perform auto-expanding and auto-scrolling of pages, comments, and images. X1’s architecture provides for such a scalable workflow.

In contrast, the web plug-in tools are web browser plug-ins that face very limiting performance ceilings and functionality constraints inherent to any such plug-in. Many users report limitations beyond capturing a few dozen posts at a time at best, with an inability to capture all comments when they number in the hundreds or numerous clustered images in thumbnail format. For this reason and many others, the web plug-in tools are generally considered a low market tool for one-off small collections.

Additionally, the legal evidentiary defensibility provided by X1 Social Discovery is in a class by itself. This is because X1 captures over a dozen unique item-level metadata fields, including the URL of the individual post (not bulk feed), User ID, Post ID, date stamps and other key metadata. Importantly, each post, which is an individual object, has its own hash value generated at the time of collection. So, when thousands of individual posts, YouTube videos, and web pages are collected into a case, and there is then a need to provide a subset of those items into a review platform or produced in discovery, the hash value and post-level metadata for each item remains intact.

The web plug-in tools only record general URLs of the bulk collection, a hash of the entire “all or nothing” bulk PDF export containing up to dozens of individual posts, with no individual hash values or metadata fields specific to any of those posts. There is an important distinction here between object-level metadata (i.e. each post) and metadata associated with the bulk feed image. If the web plug-in tools capture 50 posts in a single image feed, and the client may only want 4 of them moved into a review platform for further review, there is no way to do that except for taking secondary Snagit-type screenshots, rendering the chain of custody broken and the hash value inapplicable.

Finally, the court in Edwards v. Junior State of America Foundation, No. 4:19-CV-140-SDJ, (US Dist. CT, E.D. TX 2021), specifically ruled that only HTML or JSON social media collections are defined as “native file collection.” Flat PDFs are not.

To see this critical and unique functionality in X1 Social Discovery v7, please watch our product tour on-demand. Alternatively, we would welcome the opportunity to brief you and your colleagues directly. Please contact us to speak with a member of the X1 Team.

Leave a comment

Filed under Authentication, Best Practices, eDiscovery, ESI, law firm, Preservation & Collection, Social Media Investigations, Social Media Metadata

Tagged as , , , , ,

May 16, 2023 · 10:54 AM

X1 Delivers Cutting-Edge MS Teams Support

By John Patzakis

The prominence of Microsoft 365 data sources continue to grow in eDiscovery matters exponentially. However, most non-MS eDiscovery tools collect from MS 365 by simply making bulk copies of data associated with individual accounts, and then attempt to transfer that data en masse to their own proprietary processing and/or review platform. Such an effort is very costly, time-consuming, and inefficient for many reasons. For one, this bulk transfer triggers data transfer throttling by Microsoft, causing significant time delays. But the main problem is that clients who are investing in MS 365 do not want to see all their data routinely exported out of its native environment every time there is an eDiscovery or compliance investigation.

So, enterprises with relevant data stored in MS 365 need to have a good process to perform unified and efficient search and collection of MS 365 and non-MS 365 sources. To achieve requisite efficiency and the minimization of data transfer, this process should be based upon a targeted search and collection in-place capability, and not simply involve mass export of data out of MS 365 for downstream processing and searching.

To answer this unmet critical need, X1 launched MS 365 data connectors to our X1 Enterprise Collect platform. X1 Enterprise Collect provides users the unique ability to search and collect MS 365 data in-place. X1’s optimized approach of iterative search and targeted collection enables organizations to apply proportionality principles across both cloud and on-premise data sources with clear and consistent results for effective eDiscovery.

And now, X1 has added cutting-edge Teams support to complete our existing support of OneDrive, MS Mail and SharePoint. The X1 Enterprise Collect Teams collection capabilities include the following unique benefits unmatched by other independent software providers:
• The ability to target individual custodians and specific messaging threads, displacing any need to mass download channels
• Unified search and collection of on-premise and cloud data sources, including Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint, Mail, laptops and file-shares for an optimized approach
• Patented index, search and process the data in-place, removes any reliance on premium processing or supplemental services
• One-click upload into Relativity for review, for a streamlined end-to-end process
• A truly automated product solution, as opposed to a service-based offering

Winston & Strawn eDiscovery partner Bobby Malhotra notes: “With the vast number of users and unyielding amount of data in collaboration applications such as Teams, having the ability to target and triage data by specific custodians and threads allows organizations to handle discovery in an efficient and pragmatic manner. X1 provides the unique ability to seamlessly collect and search across numerous web, collaboration, and social, data sources.”

Watch the X1 hosted webinar on-demand featuring the hot topic of Best Practices to Collect from MS Teams in an Effective, Defensible and Proportional Manner.

The X1 Enterprise Collect Platform is available now from X1 and its global channel network in the cloud, on-premise, and with our services available on-demand. For a demonstration of the X1 Enterprise Collect Platform, contact us at sales@x1.com. For more details on this innovative solution, please visit www.x1.com/x1-enterprise-collect-platform.

Leave a comment

Filed under Authentication, Best Practices, Cloud Data, collection, compliance, Corporations, Data Audit, ECA, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, law firm, MS Teams, OneDrive, proportionality, SharePoint

Tagged as , , ,

April 18, 2023 · 10:49 AM

Social Media Evidence Proves Essential in Recent High-Stakes Trademark Infringement Matters

By John Patzakis

Recent court decisions reflect how social media evidence can play an important role in establishing actual confusion in a trademark infringement lawsuit. With the rise of social media, businesses and individuals have been able to reach wider audiences and create their own brand identities. However, this has also led to an increase in trademark infringement cases, as individuals and companies attempt to profit from the goodwill and reputation of established brands. In these cases, social media evidence is often instrumental in establishing whether there is actual confusion among consumers, which is a crucial element in proving trademark infringement. Social media evidence can help establish actual confusion by demonstrating how consumers interact with the marks in question.

In addition to user interactions such as comments or hashtags, social media evidence can also include analytics data and other metrics. For example, businesses can use social media analytics tools to track how consumers are interacting with their content and whether there are any spikes or changes in user behavior when a competitor begins using a similar mark. This data can help demonstrate actual confusion among consumers.

To establish trademark infringement, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant’s use of a mark is “likely to cause confusion” with the plaintiff’s mark under Title 15 of the U.S. Code, Section 1125(a)(1)(A). Many plaintiffs have recently highlighted social media posts, including hashtags, to establish evidence of actual confusion, which further bolsters their claims.

In Hermes International v. Rothschild, t (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2023), the luxury brand Hermès filed a trademark infringement action against the defendant who created and sold “MetaBirkin” nonfungible tokens (NFTs). Hermès asserted that Rothschild’s NFTs infringed upon its famous Birkin handbags both in name and appearance. Hermès successfully defeated a summary judgment motion by introducing social media posts into evidence that allegedly reflected actual confusion from consumers, including posts that read:

“Finally an NFT my wife can get on board with! Would LOVE to get her this Birken [sic] for Christmas!”

“I need this Birkin for the wifey! Please whitelist me sir. #WAGMI #MetaBirkins”

“Birkin NFT is the future of fashion.”

Hermès ultimately prevailed on their claims at trial based upon this and other key evidence.

In Great Western Air LLC v. Cirrus Design Corp., (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2023), a personal airplane manufacturer, Cirrus Aircraft, asserted trademark infringement against a private charter jet company, Cirrus Aviation. Cirrus Aircraft sought at trial to establish actual confusion by pointing to various social media posts that showed images of Cirrus Aircraft planes, but tagged Cirrus Aviation’s social media handle, or that had hashtags such as #cirrusaviation.

But social media evidence reflecting evidence of actual confusion cannot help your case if it is not properly authenticated. In S10 Entertainment & Media LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023) Samsung successfully objected to the admission of social media evidence that the plaintiff sought to admit into evidence. Specifically, Samsung successfully excluded what the court opinion describes as “21 unauthenticated social media posts and messages from Twitter and Instagram that S10 Entertainment purports indicate actual confusion” including “an unauthenticated YouTube video (and related screenshots).”

The court ruled that if the plaintiff intended to introduce social media posts from third parties to demonstrate that those third parties were confused, it could not authenticate those posts because it “cannot even demonstrate that these comments are real people.” The plaintiff’s use of screen shots and other failures to use best practices to authenticate the social media evidence was very costly, and defendant Samsung prevailed at trial one month after the pre-trial evidentiary hearing.

Litigants in trademark and other intellectual property actions should both understand the treasure trove of key evidence social media feeds provides, while at the same time employing best practices to properly collect and authenticate this critical evidence source.

X1 Social Discovery is the only eDiscovery solution to provide post-level parsing for social media posts, which is essential for both scalable collection and evidentiary authentication. To learn more about this important functionality, please contact us for more information.

Leave a comment

Filed under Case Law, Corporations, eDiscovery, law firm, Preservation & Collection, Social Media Investigations, Social Media Metadata

Tagged as , , , ,

March 30, 2023 · 7:59 AM

Three Major Observations and Developments from the Legalweek Conference

By Larry Gill and John Patzakis

Last week X1 attended and exhibited at Legalweek in New York, engaging with many customers, partners, and industry colleagues. It was great to connect with so many of our customers, and friends and hear their valuable feedback and insight regarding industry trends, pain-points, and their process and technology wish-lists to better address today’s eDiscovery and information governance challenges. Here is a report on three key takeaways from these interactions and the sessions we attended:

1. Corporate Counsel and Their Outside Law Firms are Both Seeking Cost Benefits Through Streamlined Processes

ALM hosted a State of the Industry session, that emphasized recent trends showing a disruption in the industry that once rewarded for inefficiency but is now being forced to change…and a digital transformation is happening. In fact, corporate legal is increasingly bringing their eDiscovery workflows in-house and seeking operational efficiencies to drive better collaboration, more predictable outcomes, and minimize costs in response to economic pressure. The presentation highlighted the top General Counsel pain-points and expectations toward streamlining their efforts including good advice, excellent technology, and efficient services.

We also heard this refrain in our various discussions with law firms and some service providers. The law firms are growing frustrated with the overcollection and other costly inefficiencies employed by service providers they hire for reactive eDiscovery engagements. These firms are working with their corporate clients to internalize a more systematic process to better manage costs and risk, with an emphasis on preservation and collection solutions to gain control earlier in the process. One service provider we met with has also recognized this trend and is sponsoring enterprise eDiscovery software deployments on a managed services basis.

2. Many Discussions About the Need for a Unified Collection Process

Every discussion we had confirmed cloud data sources such as MS 365 Mail, OneDrive, SharePoint, Teams and now Slack, comprise a significant portion of responsive ESI in nearly every matter. However, file shares, laptops and on-premise email servers remain a significant source of ESI as well, and that in-house counsel, their firms, and service providers must employ an approach that addresses all relevant data sources. Adding to this challenge, all this proliferated data can add up to tens of terabytes in a single mater. We met with one service provider with a project requirement to search several large file shares behind a company’s firewall for PII, while also needing to address company data stored in OneDrive and MS 365 mail. They expressed frustration over point solutions that did not address all the data sources they needed, did not scale, and required mass data transfer to begin assessing the data.

These demands require a robust platform to search, identify and act on all this disparate data from a unified interface and workflow. Additionally, given the volume and complexity of this data, it is important to be able to index and search this data in place to allow for iterative and targeting collection, instead of the bulk download/transfer approach by legacy tools that drive up costs and increase risks.

3. eDiscovery Vendors are Moving Upstream to Focus on Preservation and Collection

In recognizing these trends, solution providers “moving to the left” with greater urgency was evident at Legalweek. Acquisitions like LIGL by Reveal and Relativity investing in successful partnerships with collection platforms Cellebrite and X1, show that offering a solution that addresses the most critical “front end of the legal eDiscovery process” is absolutely necessary moving forward. In fact, the buzz at Legalweek was that eDiscovery review platforms are or are looking to make bold moves to the left in order to better differentiate and better control eDiscovery workflows and start with collection.

Another factor in the renewed focus on collection relates to the proliferation of AI, a clear theme in many conference sessions and floor discussions. With AI becoming more ubiquitous yet more commoditized, organizations are looking to solidify their collection approach. As OpenAI and many other open-sourced platforms dominate the landscape, the advantages of proprietary AI technologies are diminished. But now more than ever, there is a need for a streamlined data collection “pipeline” into these AI engines. The more streamlined and efficient the collection process, the more powerful and iterative the AI capabilities.

To discuss some of these Legalweek takeaways in greater detail, X1 will be hosting a webinar on Thursday, April 20 featuring Navigating Data Discovery in a Microsoft 365 Centric World, register here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, eDiscovery, Enterprise eDiscovery, ESI, Information Governance, law firm, OneDrive, Preservation & Collection, SharePoint

Tagged as ,

October 4, 2022 · 9:49 AM

Flawed Collection Methods Prevent TAR and Other Applications of Analytics on Social Media Evidence

By John Patzakis

Every litigator and eDiscovery practitioner is aware of the critical importance of analytics as a tool to support their cases. AI-driven analytics supercharges compliance investigations, data security, privacy audits, and Technology Assisted Review (TAR) of documents, emails, social media and other web-based items. AI machine learning employs mathematical models to assess enormous datasets to gain deep insights into key information. This enables the identification of discrete and hidden patterns in thousands of emails, social media posts and other electronic files to categorize and cluster documents by concepts, content, or topic.

However, it is important to understand that such a powerful capability requires the extracted text and metadata of the subject documents, emails and social media posts. So when examiners resort to screenshots, including flat file PDF image captures, this prevents the use of game-changing analytics in your case. Screenshots do not natively preserve the subject text or metadata and are useless if fed into analytics engines. This is a major disconnect with many eDiscovery practitioners who may not fully understand that by utilizing print screen, they are forfeiting their clients’ ability to utilize otherwise game-changing analytics on the social media and other web-based data they are collecting.

Bobby Malhotra, eDiscovery team co-lead at Munger Tolles highlighted this point in a recent webinar addressing the importance of native file collection for social media evidence: “If you are on a matter that is going to be very data intensive in terms of collecting voluminous amounts of data from social media sites, and you are going to need to mine through that data to understand what happened and get the relevant context (with an AI engine) the only way to really do that is to collect the full text and metadata, and so, screenshots will not suffice.” Malhotra emphasized that this is a “really critical point regarding the analytics process as a lot of people don’t think about that.”

In fact, not only will screenshots omit text and metadata, the screenshot will create a false record if introduced into the review and analytics workflow as the metadata of the screenshot itself will be completely different that the metadata of the original native object. For these reasons, it is important under an attorney’s duty of competency related to eDiscovery technology, to understand the implications of not collecting social media and web based evidence in native format, and strongly consider utilizing best practices technology to properly collect and preserve this critical source of evidence.

Leave a comment

Filed under Authentication, Best Practices, Data Audit, eDiscovery & Compliance, ESI, law firm, Preservation & Collection, Social Media Investigations, Social Media Metadata

Tagged as , , , , ,