Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hyperlinked Documents: The Latest e-Discovery Challenge
Dynamic files shared as links rather than attachments — known as hyperlinked documents — are emerging as a new frontier in the e-discovery landscape. As courts and discovery experts debate whether hyperlinked content should be treated the same as traditional attachments, legal practitioners are grappling with the technical and legal complexities of collecting, analyzing and reviewing these documents in real-world cases.
How Cloud Storage Changed File Sharing
Cloud storage services such as OneDrive, SharePoint, and Google Drive have revolutionized file sharing, facilitating collaboration in an increasingly global workplace. By sharing links, users can distribute documents quickly, bypassing email attachment limits and physical transfers. These links allow recipients to view and edit files in real time, ensuring they always see the most up-to-date version. While convenient, hyperlinked documents introduce significant challenges for e-discovery professionals.
Understanding Hyperlinked Documents
A hyperlinked document is shared via a link or URL in an email or chat, rather than being physically transmitted as an attachment. The underlying file remains on a cloud server and can be accessed by clicking the link. Examples include:
- Microsoft: Share > Copy Link > Paste the link.
- Google Docs: Bookmark icon > Right-click Link > Copy link address.
- Box: Hover over file/folder > Create and Copy Shared Link > Send Shared Link > Enter collaborator's email/name > Type a message > Send.
These documents are common in collaborative applications, offering advantages such as reduced email storage and real-time collaboration. However, their dynamic nature poses unique challenges for e-discovery.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.