Hyperlinked Documents: What Are Your Collection Requirements

The Challenge of Hyperlinked Data

Modern data types routinely change as new means of communication become popular with people and accepted by organizations. With all of these new data and communication types, it not only taxes people with how to send and receive information, but also how to effectively store it. One innovation to better control information from a size and security standpoint is the use of shared links to documents.

This approach is helpful for organizations. It allows for tighter control over materials and supports a single version of a document rather than multiple copies across user mailboxes. However, it raises questions about what needs to be collected when documents are shared solely by link, especially since those documents can change over time.

A Court’s Approach to Hyperlinked Documents

A court recently considered this issue in United Ass’n Nat’l Pension Fund v. Carvana Co., No. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz. Jan. 12, 2026). The court had previously ruled that hyperlinks are discoverable and allowed for testing of Forensic Email Collector (FEC) to obtain point-in-time versions of linked documents associated with emails.

Carvana applied FEC to two custodians and obtained 7,395 documents at a cost of approximately $200,000, or about $425 per document. Based on this, the defendants argued that the burden of collecting these files was unreasonable.

Balancing Burden and Discovery Obligations

The court determined that applying this process to all 25 custodians was unnecessary, but that there was a reasonable burden to produce contemporaneous versions for 250 specifically identified documents.

This approach balanced the difficulty of retrieving historical versions of linked files with the obligation to produce relevant evidence. The court also allowed production of responsive Google Vault documents, with a subset used to identify related emails across custodians.

Importantly, the ruling did not eliminate the requirement to produce relevant documents. It simply set boundaries around how that obligation should be met.

Implications for Data Storage and Litigation Risk

This ruling highlights a key point: adopting new technology does not remove the responsibility to produce relevant information. Using systems that make retrieval more difficult is not a defense against discovery obligations.

Organizations should consider how new storage methods may introduce risk or cost in future litigation. It is also important for both IT and Legal teams to stay informed on evolving rulings, as these decisions shape expectations around data retention, collection, and production.

Being prepared allows organizations to respond more efficiently and manage discovery obligations in a more cost-effective way.