Link to report by CXO Media, sponsored by Iron Mountain, posted at Iron Mountain Knowledge Center: Why many CIOs are treating backup and archiving strategies separately—and saving bundles of money

With all eyes on the future, smart CIOs are taking a long, hard look at their backup and archiving strategies—and asking a lot of tough questions.

What data needs to be recovered? How quickly must that recovery occur? What data must be accessible in the event of litigation? How granular must access be? What’s to be gained from indexing?

But the all-important question is this: Should backup and archiving strategies differ?

Yes, according to a recent survey by IDG Research Services. More than half of the respondents recognize key distinctions between backup and archiving, and reveal very different reasons for doing each one….

Rarely do I comment on the items I post on this blog, but in this case Tom Gelbmann and I felt a response was necessary.

We appreciate the attention paid to our survey results in Aaref Hilaly’s Dec. 14, 2007 blog entry, “Top E-Discovery Software Vendors” posted on e-discovery 2.0.

We disagree, however, with the conclusions.

We do not agree with the first set of conclusions:

1. That any vendor nor in the lists “is not worth considering for e-discovery”;
2. That vendors not on either list “are best avoided”; and
3. That the results show that “if you are an enterprise looking for an e-discovery solution, it is clear who you should call first.”

While we cannot speak for Gartner, we certainly speak for ourselves. In a September 26, 2007 posting to EDD Update, we sought to debunk a few misconceptions about the results of our surveys. One of those misconceptions was “I need to hire an electronic discovery provider. I want the best. All I need to do is choose someone off the Socha-Gelbmann list.” We said, “Stop right there and start over. You do not really want some abstract ‘best’; you want the best for you in a particular situation.” For the full posting, go to:

http://commonscold.typepad.com/eddupdate/2007/09/2007-socha-gelb.html

We have a similar disclaimer posted where we post our survey results at:

http://www.sochaconsulting.com/2007surveyresults.php

That disclaimer states:

As with any top-X list, it is important to keep these lists in context and use them only as appropriate. You should not choose a provider based solely on these lists, or solely on the basis of any other top-X list. The factors we examined may not apply to your circumstances, and mostly likely will not apply with the specific weightings and ratings we used. In addition, you will have needs and considerations we could not have taken into account.

It also is important to note that our evaluation model relies heavily on information provided through interviews or questionnaires (spreadsheets). We recognize that there are other vendors with the qualifications to rank within the top X, however the data on them was not available to us. Some providers, including prominent ones, did not provide any data and others, including prominent ones, provided only limited information.

By the way, the 2007 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey was our fifth annual survey, not our third.

Link to blog entry posted by Aaref Hilaly on e-discovery 2.0, December 14, 2007:

There are two independent analyst reports identifying the top e-discovery software vendors.

The first, published in June 2007, is the Socha-Gelbmann Annual Electronic Discovery Survey. The authors, George Socha and Tom Gelbmann, probably know more about e-discovery than anyone else you are likely to meet. As someone who has filled out their 178-page survey, I can tell you it is excruciating in its detail and incredibly rigorous. For example, despite the fact that (according the report) they contacted nearly 1,000 individuals and collected detailed data from 115 organizations, Tom still kept our customer references on the phone for well over an hour each….

Link to press release:  MENLO PARK, CA — Technology changes everything. When asked recently what they felt would have the biggest impact on the practice of law over the next five years, one in four (25 percent) attorneys polled said electronic discovery (e-discovery). Globalization followed closely, cited by 23 percent of attorneys surveyed. Read the rest of this entry »

Link to press release, December 12, 2007:  A new independent study highlights gap between those who set electronically stored information (ESI) policies and those who bear responsibility; opening companies to risk of brand reputation damage and substantial financial loss

MINNEAPOLIS - CEOs and other business leaders are likely to bear business risk when their organizations lack policies on handling electronically stored information (ESI) - despite the fact that they are rarely involved in developing or enforcing that ESI policy. This is the key finding in a new independent study commissioned by Kroll Ontrack(R), the leading provider of paper and electronic discovery, computer forensics, and courtroom and presentation services. Read the rest of this entry »

Link to press release: One Year Later, IT Departments Still Struggling to Address FRCP Requirements

OCEANPORT, N.J. — December 11, 2007 — It’s been one year since the US government overhauled the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) on December 1, 2006 in an effort to streamline the electronic discovery of information. A new study conducted by CommVault® (NASDAQ: CVLT), however, highlights some alarming statistics in the preparedness of enterprise companies to comply with these regulations. According to the survey of IT managers, only 20 percent are aware of the amendments governing e-discovery, and only 6 percent of the total respondents have actually implemented a solution to address the issue. The survey suggests that confusion still exists about the rules and that many firms are still struggling to clarify the roles IT departments should play in defining the procedures to address FRCP requirements. Read the rest of this entry »

Press release:  LexisNexis Corporate Counsel Survey highlights challenges, lingering misperceptions in complying with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) since implementation a year ago

New York, NY – November 29, 2007 – Forty-four percent of corporate counsel attorneys revealed their companies were not prepared when the revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) for e-discovery came into effect in December 1, 2006, according to the recently conducted LexisNexis® Corporate Counsel Survey. Additionally, 20 percent of corporate counsel were unaware of whether or not their company was prepared for the amendments to the federal rules prior to implementation. The survey also suggests that some significant challenges and misconceptions about the rules are still prevalent, but that companies have made strides in 2007 to be better prepared. Read the rest of this entry »

Press release: 91% of Corporate Counsel View Records Management Compliance as Important, but 75% Still Lack Auditable Standards for E-Discovery Processes

WEST ORANGE, NJ–(Marketwire - November 1, 2007) - Since the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect last year, organizations have been looking to outside resources for more assistance in managing information capture and production demands. But a recent survey of chief legal officers from over 100 organizations indicates disappointment with the quality of those services and marginal progress with improving records and information management practices. Read the rest of this entry »

Blog entry by Robert D. Owen posted on Slaw.ca, November 4, 2007:

My firm, Fulbright & Jaworski, has released the findings from our Fourth Annual Litigation Trends Survey. It’s the largest survey of its kind, and this year over 300 general counsel or heads of litigation responded to our questions. I am a principal architect of the survey and always insert a host of questions on e-discovery issues. This year’s findings are quite interesting….

Press release: Findings also Suggest that Costly Storage Resources are Wasted Archiving Messages that are Deemed ‘Unimportant’

SAN FRANCISCO, October 9, 2007 – Recommind, a leading provider of enterprise search, automatic categorization and eDiscovery systems for law firms and enterprises, today released the findings of a recent study conducted with analyst firm Osterman Research, which reveals that many North American organizations may not be prepared to meet the eDiscovery requirements of litigation or regulatory investigations. The research also shows that costly storage resources are spent stockpiling email messages that are of little or no value to the organization and could even subject companies to unnecessary exposure in subsequent litigation. These results suggest that such operational challenges are due in large part to antiquated, overly manual email management practices that rely on inefficient and ineffective identification of content by the user. Read the rest of this entry »