The Rise of Collaboration Platforms and Their ESI Implications

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the widespread adoption of collaboration platforms, solidifying their role as primary communication tools in remote and hybrid workplaces. These platforms generate vast quantities of electronically stored information (ESI), often dispersed across multiple repositories and formats. Unlike traditional emails and documents, ESI from collaboration platforms may consist of transient chat threads, version-controlled documents, dynamic hyperlinks, video meeting recordings, and data integrated from third-party applications.

Zoom, in particular, has emerged not only as a central collaboration hub for remote teams but also as an increasingly common feature in judicial proceedings. Courts across the United States have adopted Zoom to conduct motion hearings, status conferences, evidentiary hearings, and even full bench and, apparently in some limited cases, jury trials (see, e.g., Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order AOSC20-23 (March 2020), permitting remote jury trials during the COVID-19 emergency, and Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit pilot programs for virtual jury selection). These virtual proceedings have resulted in a range of discoverable data artifacts, including video recordings, chat logs, waiting room entries, polling responses (which are stored in the Zoom administrative account dashboard logs and exportable in CSV or JSON format[1] for discovery processing), file shares, and on-screen annotations. For courts and counsel alike, this expands the evidentiary universe and requires careful attention to data preservation, authentication, and admissibility.

These dual roles of Zoom—as both a workplace collaboration tool and a courtroom technology—underscore the platform’s complexity and importance in modern litigation. From a judicial standpoint, Zoom has offered increased efficiency, transparency, and accessibility, particularly in high-volume civil dockets. However, it also raises novel concerns about digital recordkeeping, chain of custody, privacy, and the inadvertent waiver of privileged or protected information.

This presents a fundamental challenge: traditional custodial models for identifying, preserving, and collecting data do not seamlessly apply to noncustodial environments inherent to collaboration tools. Conversations are rarely confined to individual custodians. Instead, they take place in shared spaces—channels, groups, or teams—where ownership and access may be fluid, dynamic, and poorly documented.

Preservation and Collection Complexities

Preserving data from collaboration platforms requires an understanding of the architecture and interconnectivity of the tools in use. Communications may span chat, file-sharing, and video functions, with metadata scattered across OneDrive, Dropbox, SharePoint, Google Drive, Zoom’s cloud infrastructure or many other document retention platforms. Hyperlinked content further complicates preservation, particularly when the linked documents are continuously modified, deleted, or stored outside the originating platform.

The 2025 amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 explicitly adopt the federal proportionality standard and emphasize disclosure obligations that include nontraditional and hyperlinked ESI. See In re Amendments to Fla. R. Civ. P., SC2023-0962 (Dec. 5, 2024).

Going forward, organizations will likely be required to address developing preservation protocols that align with proportionality and reasonableness standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). This includes early identification of data sources, consultation with IT and legal teams, and where necessary, leveraging third-party tools to extract and preserve hyperlinked and versioned documents.

Courts have increasingly scrutinized data spoliation where organizations fail to identify or preserve Slack, Teams, Zoom, or similar data sources in a timely fashion. For example, in Drips Holdings, LLC v. Teledrip LLC, 2022 WL 4545233 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2022), the court imposed sanctions after the defendant altered its Slack data retention policies and deleted prior exports post-litigation notice. Similarly, In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., 2024 WL 1772832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024), addressed the limitations of preserving hyperlinked Google Workspace content in archived environments like Google Vault.

Challenges in Search, Review, and Production

The search and review of collaboration data introduce novel issues in unitization, context, and relevance. Unlike traditional email chains, collaboration communications are often fragmented, informal, and iterative. Determining what constitutes a “document” can be elusive. Courts encourage parties to establish protocols—often during Rule 26(f) conferences or, in Florida state court, pursuant to newly adopted Rule 1.202 (effective Jan. 1, 2025), which requires conferral before filing discovery motions—that reflect the operational realities of these platforms.

Search strategies must accommodate abbreviations, emojis, and informal language. Deduplication and privilege review require tailored methodologies, especially when attorney-client communications are embedded in ongoing threads. The production format remains a matter of negotiation. The use of Relativity Short Message Format (RSMF) has gained traction, though parties must agree on metadata fields, context thresholds, and redaction strategies.

In Bidprime, LLC v. Smartprocure, Inc., 2018 WL 6588574 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2018), the court ordered complete Slack threads rather than isolated messages to ensure necessary context. By contrast, in Marksman Sec. Corp. v. P.G. Sec., Inc., 2021 WL 4990442 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2021). the court deferred to the producing party’s discretion to exclude non-relevant chat segments

Hyperlinks, Family Relationships, and Evidentiary Considerations

One of the most challenging aspects of collaboration platform discovery is the treatment of hyperlinked documents. Unlike email attachments, hyperlinked content is often stored outside the message container, making preservation and association more complex. Courts remain divided on whether such documents constitute part of the “family” for production purposes.

In Nichols v. Noom Inc., 2021 WL 948646 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2021), the court held that a hyperlinked document is not automatically equivalent to an email attachment and should not be treated as such for discovery. Conversely, in In re StubHub Refund Litig., 2024 WL 2305604 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2024), the court initially ordered production of hyperlinked documents as part of the message “family,” only to later grant modification of the protocol due to technological impossibility.

Hyperlinks also raise evidentiary issues under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 (authentication), 803(6) (business records), and 807 (residual hearsay). The rule of completeness under Rule 106 may require the inclusion of hyperlinked content to preserve contextual integrity.

Information Governance and Future Considerations

Effective information governance is critical to collaboration platform management. Organizations must establish retention policies, metadata standards, and workflows that reflect platform-specific capabilities. The Sedona Conference emphasizes that governance frameworks should precede litigation, not arise reactively. Commentary on Discovery of Collaboration-Platforms Data (Apr. 2025).

Rule 26(f) discovery plans should address whether hyperlinked documents will be treated as family members, the unitization logic for messages, and whether AI-generated content will be collected. The increasing integration of generative AI (GenAI)—such as Microsoft Copilot, Google Duet, or Zoom AI Companion—complicates discoverability. These tools can create auto-summaries, suggestions, meeting transcripts, and action items, which may be stored as discoverable ESI.

Counsel must consider whether such content is stored, retrievable, and subject to legal hold. Courts may look to Rule 902(13)–(14) for self-authentication and Rule 807 for hearsay exceptions when evaluating AI-authored communications. The Sedona Conference, Commentary on ESI Evidence & Admissibility, 22 Sedona Conf. J. 91, 2021. This is particularly relevant where AI-generated summaries or transcripts are exported with system logs or verified metadata, which courts increasingly accept as sufficient under Rule 902(13).

Attorneys are increasingly expected to supervise technical processes under ABA Model Rule 1.1 (competence) and Rule 3.4 (fairness in discovery), with courts taking note when discovery processes fail to meet professional standards. Judges also face new evidentiary challenges involving the reliability, chain of custody, and authentication of digital courtroom records, requiring updated bench protocols and a deeper understanding of the platforms in use.

Toward a Strategic Discovery Framework

To manage collaboration-platform data effectively, counsel must adopt a layered, forward-looking approach. Early coordination between legal and technical teams is essential to identify relevant platforms, data locations, and export limitations. Discovery strategy should be embedded in proactive information governance and carefully reflected in meet-and-confer agreements.

The litigation team’s responsibilities include mapping noncustodial ESI sources, identifying ephemeral or versioned content, and determining the impact of licensing tiers on preservation and production capabilities. A “set it and forget it” approach is insufficient; discovery must remain dynamic and responsive to evolving technologies and court expectations.

Recalibration of Civil Discovery Strategies

The emergence of collaboration platforms necessitates a fundamental recalibration of civil discovery strategies. Legal practitioners must possess not only legal acumen but also technological fluency to navigate this evolving terrain. Courts, too, must remain agile, tailoring discovery rulings to reflect both the burden on producing parties and the legitimate needs of requesting parties. As platform capabilities evolve, so too must our discovery frameworks—toward a standard of fairness, feasibility, and fidelity to the truth.

Selected Citations

1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 26(f), 34(b)(2)(E), 37(e)
2. Fed. R. Evid. 106, 801(d)(2), 803(6), 807, 901, 902(13)-(14)
3. Nichols v. Noom Inc., No. 20-CV-3677, 2021 WL 948646 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2021)
4. In re StubHub Refund Litig., No. 20-md-02951, 2024 WL 2305604 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2024)
5. Drips Holdings, LLC v. Teledrip LLC, No. 5:19-CV-2789, 2022 WL 4545233 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2022)
6. In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., No. 23-md-03084, 2024 WL 1772832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024)
7. Bidprime, LLC v. Smartprocure, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-478-RP, 2018 WL 6588574 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2018)
8. Marksman Sec. Corp. v. P.G. Sec., Inc., No. 19-CV-62467, 2021 WL 4990442 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2021)
9. The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Discovery of Collaboration-Platforms Data (Apr. 2025, Public Comment Version)
10. The Sedona Conference, Commentary on ESI Evidence & Admissibility, 22 Sedona Conf. J. 91 (2021)
11. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.1, 3.4

Checklist: Collaboration-Platform Discovery Readiness

For Legal Practitioners

• Identify all collaboration tools in use (Slack, Teams, Zoom, etc.) and associated license tiers.
• Map custodial and noncustodial data repositories, including cloud storage and video conferencing platforms.
• Issue litigation holds that account for ephemeral messaging, versioned documents, and meeting artifacts.
• Establish ESI protocols addressing unitization, hyperlink treatment, metadata fields, and GenAI content.
• Choose appropriate collection tools for JSON, RSMF, and platform APIs.[1]
• Tailor keyword and AI search strategies to informal language and emojis common in chat threads.
• Ensure privilege review methods accommodate mixed communications in dynamic collaboration threads.
• Agree on production format, redaction policy, and placeholders for withheld documents.

For Judges and Court Administrators

• Understand the evidentiary implications of Zoom and collaboration platform records.
• Establish protocols for preserving and accessing courtroom Zoom recordings, chats, and digital exhibits.
• Determine standards for authentication of AI-generated summaries, transcripts, or annotations.
• Require disclosure of collaboration platform usage during early case management conferences.
• Apply proportionality principles when resolving disputes over hyperlinked and ephemeral content.
• Encourage parties to submit technical declarations when platform functionality or burden is at issue.
• Ensure courtroom staff are trained on preserving and securing digital evidence presented through collaboration tools.

This checklist is intended as a modifiable guide, adaptable to ongoing changes in collaboration technology and evolving case law.

[1] JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a lightweight, structured data format commonly used by collaboration platforms to store and transmit message data, metadata, timestamps, user information, hyperlinks, and attachments. In eDiscovery, JSON files are typically machine-readable and require parsing and conversion to human-readable formats for effective review and production. RSMF (Relativity Short Message Format) is a proprietary format developed by Relativity to present chat and short message data—including Slack, Microsoft Teams, and WhatsApp—in a readable format that preserves conversation context, timestamps, metadata, emojis, and attachments. It enables reviewers to view messages in a bubble-style interface similar to the original platform and is increasingly used as a standard production format in discovery. Platform APIs(Application Programming Interfaces) serve as structured access points allowing authorized eDiscovery tools to collect data directly from collaboration platforms. APIs facilitate scalable, defensible, and targeted data collections across users, channels, and time frames and are often necessary to access private messages, ephemeral data, and full metadata logs that are not available through basic export functions. Use of APIs often depends on the producing party’s licensing level and technical configuration, making them central to proportionality and feasibility discussions under Rule 26(b)(1)