You've decided to migrate the on premise Exchange email system to Office 365 but your email migration service provider has rightfully asked if your company also employs a separate email archiving solution. For most companies, the answer is yes and in most cases that email archive is 10x to 20x larger in size than your live email system. The great thing is Office 365 includes the personal archive so you will be able to migrate the entirety of your aging and costly email archive up to Office 365 and jettison the high annual cost of maintaining the on premise email archive. The only cost involved is the actual migration of the archive data and in most cases that cost will be a small percentage of the annual archive support cost.
Companies that transmit data from Europe to the US have become vulnerable to unexpected financial costs from EU members. Brexit may be the most visible headline from the EU but a lesser-known threat poses more of a compliance concern. We reported last Fall about the potential fallout expected after the EU’s decision in the Schrems case invalidating the Safe Harbor Agreement and what US companies could expect were they not to change course before the EU’s January 2016 deadline. [i] Specifically, our concern was that an individual EU member State could impose its own rules and fine companies in the absence of a common plan subjecting US companies to potentially 28 different sets of privacy rules. Germany has now fired the first shot in this new privacy skirmish.
Subscribe to the blog and get instant access to the crucial steps to ensure your cloud-based Office 365 migration goes smoothly.
Responding to an eDiscovery request carries with it many duties and responsibilities that the court will expect to be carried out in a good faith manner. Several of these duties are set it stone via the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and should not be ignored or taken lightly.
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed into law a new private cause of action for civil litigation under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 known as the “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016” (“DTSA”). Previously, trade secrets were protected under individual State law1. The new law now opens up federal courts to plaintiffs to litigate trade secret claims and obtain injunctions, prevent disclosure and seek economic damages for trade secret violations similar to those available for other intellectual property such as patents and copyrights. Trade secrets involve varied types of legally protected information including computer software and customer lists. One unique feature of the new law involves an ex parte “seizure” provision that allows trade secret owners to actually petition the court in advance of a lawsuit without notice to the alleged offender to obtain a federal order to seize servers and other tangible property involved in the alleged illegal activity. Economic damages under the DTSA are meant to serve as a deterrent with severe punitive features including double damages available to successful litigants.