Provided is a short list of 30+ investment organizations that have funded eDiscovery-related companies between 2009 and today. The list is non-comprehensive and is based on industry mergers, acquisitions and investment tracking by ComplexDiscovery.
The attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment exposed sensitive intellectual property, revealed personal employee details, and demonstrated the vulnerabilities of U.S. companies to cyberattack. Two months later, the dust continues to settle as the repercussions of this breach are assessed. Far beyond the millions of dollars in lost revenue, Sony may suffer significant reputational risk and could endure protracted lawsuits for years to come. For the financial industry, the implications of a breach of this magnitude would extend even further, into its fiduciary responsibility to protect the vital economic lifeblood of the United States.
As lawyers, we hear a lot about the technological advances in e-discovery and information governance. How do you describe the current state of e-discovery from an opportunity and growth perspective, and how does this market opportunity impact the pulse rate of mergers, acquisitions, and investments? For lawyers purchasing e-discovery packages, there are several types of vendors and pricing models, and they need to be asking the right questions. What does the data governance solution need to do, how much does it cost, what are the time constraints, and how complex is the system?
Published on November 10, 2014, the new Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Information Archiving (G00262936) provides information technology and business professionals with information and insight into solutions available to meet compliance and eDiscovery challenges while reducing primary storage costs.
Founded in 2004, Equivio has become one of the world’s leading provider of text analysis software for information governance and eDiscovery. Currently they have generated increased interest based on the reported potential acquisition of the company by Microsoft. Provided in this post is a quick reference listing of select technology, governmental and commercial entities that are currently represented as part of Equivio’s installed base or have been mentioned between 2005 and today on the Equivio website in the form of a press release.
Based on a website review of this year’s Inc. 5000, the following list provides a quick, non-all inclusive reference of some of the eDiscovery enablers that have been included in the 2014 list. The sortable list includes the provider’s name, 2014 Inc. 5000 ranking (#), three year revenue growth (%), 2013 revenue ($) and industry categorization.
Since its 2007 introduction, kCura’s Relativity product has become one of the world’s leading attorney review platforms. One of the elements of Relativity’s strong growth and marketplace acceptance has been kCura’s focus on and support of partnerships. Provided as a by-product of review platform research and presented in the form of a simple and sortable table is an aggregation of kCura Premium Hosting Partners and Consulting Partners.
With a desire to increase the understanding of those considering engaging with eDiscovery vendors, provided is a simple subjective analysis of the operational center of gravity for approximately 130 providers.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the information governance arena, the following short list of enablers highlights companies and firms that may be useful in the consideration of information governance products and services.
Good vendors share what they know they see. Great vendors share what they may not see so you can make informed decisions as to risk and exposure.
Designed to provide a salient starting point for individuals seeking information related to the field of eDiscovery, this abridged overview of eDiscovery resources provides readers with a non-comprehensive listing of key industry informational resources.
Balancing the business drivers of cost, time, and complexity in the conduct of electronic discovery continues to be one of the greatest challenges faced by electronic discovery practitioners today.
Provided as a non-comprehensive overview of over 100 key and publicly announced eDiscovery related mergers, acquisitions and investments since 2001, the following listing highlights key industry activities through the lens of announcement date, acquired company, acquiring or investing company and acquisition amount (if known).
Beginning in early 2012 the topic of Technology-Assisted Review moved from expert-led explanations to mainstream mentions in legal community articles, opinions, surveys and reports. Provided for your research, review and consideration are a compilation of key headlines and links from online sources on the topic of Technology-Assisted Review from February, 2012, until now.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the legal management arena, the following “20+ Vendor” list provides a short listing that may be useful in the consideration of legal management vendors.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the electronic discovery arena, the following “100+ Provider” list provides a short listing that may be useful in the consideration of electronic discovery providers.
eDiscovery is rife with risk. Multiple parties, multiple jurisdictions, multiple ESI formats, multiple technologies and multiple vendors are all elements that can contribute to potential risk in an eDiscovery matter. With the prevalence of risk in eDiscovery, it is important that eDiscovery decision makers fully consider vendor viability during the vendor selection process.
The Basic eDiscovery Offering Framework is designed to help eDiscovery professionals cohesively consider how to share and compare service and product information as it relates to the conduct of eDiscovery regardless of the steps, model or best practices used by practitioners.
Comparing and contrasting eDiscovery providers is a daunting task when one considers the multiple stages of eDiscovery, the many providers of eDiscovery offerings, and the fact that most provider comparisons today are based on solely on stage (EDRM¹) or feature/function capabilities.
Even with the current maturation of electronic discovery solutions (i.e. technology is far from mature), there are still many situations where pure customer service makes the difference between an organization’s ability to meet or not meet client needs. With that being said, truly subjective client service requirements may be very difficult to specify. In fact beyond service level agreements, timeline requirements, project management processes, and work product specifications, many vendors are at a loss when seeking to address the implied but all too real needs of the client.