# Casepoint eDiscovery: Cloud Platform Review, Legal Hold, and Review Tools

Evaluating enterprise eDiscovery software requires assessing how well preservation workflows bridge into document collection and review. This review analyzes Casepoint eDiscovery, examining its cloud-native architecture, automated legal hold tracking, AI-assisted review tools, and pricing models. We also explore practical workarounds for sharing evidence with co-counsel and external collaborators.

Source: https://fast.io/resources/casepoint-ediscovery/
Last reviewed: 2026-09-08

## What Is Casepoint eDiscovery? Architecture and Platform Overview

Litigation teams evaluating cloud eDiscovery platforms routinely find that the hardest operational hurdle is not indexing text, but managing the handoffs between custodian preservation, data processing, and external co-counsel sharing. When legal hold tracking is disconnected from active evidence ingestion, or when sharing productions requires provisioning expensive review licenses for outside attorneys, discovery budgets quickly escalate.

Casepoint is a cloud-based eDiscovery and litigation support platform that integrates legal hold, automated ingestion, advanced AI analytics, and document review for corporations, law firms, and government agencies. Founded as a technology-driven litigation support provider, Casepoint evolved into a unified Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) application designed to manage the entire Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) lifecycle within a single browser-based workspace.

Unlike legacy litigation software that relies on separate hosted servers or bolted-together third-party utilities, Casepoint operates on a centralized cloud architecture. Data resides in a single relational data store from the initial legal hold notice through final production. This architectural model eliminates the traditional data handoffs between separate vendors, reducing the risk of file corruption, metadata loss, and chain-of-custody discrepancies.

A defining differentiator for Casepoint is its footprint in the public sector. The platform holds extensive federal security credentials, positioning it as a leading government ediscovery software option. Casepoint has achieved FedRAMP High authorization, Department of Defense (DoD) Impact Level 5 (IL5), and DoD Impact Level 6 (IL6) authorizations. These credentials allow federal defense agencies, civilian bureaus, and state attorneys general to process highly sensitive and classified information without deploying custom on-premises hardware.

For corporate legal departments and private law firms, this government-grade security framework provides high operational reliability. However, evaluating Casepoint requires looking past government credentials to see how the system performs in daily litigation practice, particularly during custodian management, early case assessment, and multi-party discovery sharing.

| Dimension | Casepoint eDiscovery | Legacy Hosted Platforms | Point Solutions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Unified cloud-native database | Multi-tenant or hosted single-tenant VMs | Fragmented tools connected via manual export |
| Legal Hold | Built-in module with HR directory sync | Third-party add-on or manual spreadsheets | Standalone hold software requiring CSV re-import |
| Ingestion and ECA | Built-in cloud connectors for M365 and Slack | Desktop staging tools, FTP, or physical drives | Independent processing engines requiring staging |
| Security Profile | FedRAMP High, DoD IL5, DoD IL6 | Commercial cloud hosting dependent on vendor | Varies widely across point applications |
| External Sharing | Role-based internal user provisioning | Separate external user license fees | Standard cloud storage links or SFTP servers |

The comparison highlights Casepoint primary structural advantage: consolidation. By managing preservation, processing, and document review inside one platform, litigation managers avoid the operational drag of transferring terabytes of evidence across disconnected point solutions.

## How Casepoint Automates Legal Hold and Custodian Management

The initial phase of any contentious legal matter begins with the duty to preserve relevant electronically stored information (ESI). In complex litigation, executing this duty across hundreds of employees using manual spreadsheets or standard email templates introduces severe spoliation risks. A single overlooked custodian or unacknowledged hold notice can result in court sanctions under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Casepoint Legal Hold addresses this liability by automating custodian notifications, acknowledgment tracking, and escalation schedules directly within the matter workspace. The module provides legal operations teams with a defensible management framework that replaces ad hoc preservation methods.

### Directory Synchronization and Custodian Identification

A recurring failure mode in corporate discovery is custodian turnover. Employees change roles, take leaves of absence, or depart the company while under an active hold notice. Casepoint mitigates this issue by integrating directly with enterprise human resources directories and identity providers, such as Microsoft Entra ID and Okta.

When a litigation hold is created, the system monitors custodian directory status in real time. If a key custodian changes departments or initiates offboarding, the platform flags the event for the legal hold administrator. This automated monitoring allows legal teams to issue secondary preservation instructions to department supervisors or suspend IT hardware decommissioning cycles before local drives are wiped.

### Automated Notifications and Custodian Questionnaires
Issuing a legal hold inside Casepoint involves selecting pre-approved firm templates or tailoring custom notices for specific litigation matters. Administrators can configure:
* Automated delivery schedules that release hold notices immediately or at designated milestones.
* Recurring reminder sequences that prompt non-responsive custodians at defined intervals, such as every 3 business days.
* Escalation routing that notifies the custodian direct manager or outside litigation counsel if an acknowledgment remains unsigned after a set deadline.
* Interactive custodian interview questionnaires designed to identify relevant data repositories, personal mobile devices, messaging applications, and secondary email accounts.

The platform allows hold emails to reflect the direct sender address of the responsible lead attorney, which improves open rates and compliance compared to generic administrative system notifications.

### Defensible Audit Logging
Defensibility in eDiscovery rests on proving what steps the organization took to preserve evidence and when those actions occurred. Casepoint records every interaction inside an append-only audit trail. 

The system documents the exact timestamp when a hold notice was dispatched, delivered to the custodian inbox, viewed, and acknowledged via electronic signature. Custodian survey answers are indexed and attached directly to the custodian profile. When defending a preservation strategy during a Rule 26(f) meet-and-confer conference, litigation counsel can export real-time compliance dashboards and audit reports to demonstrate defensible preservation efforts.

## The Transition from Legal Hold to Data Collection and Processing

The transition between preserving evidence and collecting it for processing is where traditional litigation workflows experience their most expensive breakdowns. In conventional discovery setups, after custodians acknowledge a hold, litigation support specialists must coordinate with corporate IT staff to manually pull mailboxes, Slack channels, and local disk images. Those collected archives are then transferred via SFTP or physical media to an external discovery vendor, who ingests the data into a processing engine.

Casepoint eliminates this multi-step handoff by linking its legal hold module directly to cloud data connectors and its processing pipeline.

### In-Place Preservation Versus Active Cloud Collection
Modern corporate ESI no longer sits on local desktop hard drives; it resides across distributed SaaS applications. Casepoint approaches this reality through two coordinated collection mechanisms:

1. **In-Place Preservation:** For supported cloud ecosystems, including Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and enterprise file repositories, Casepoint can apply preservation holds directly within the host environment. This approach locks files and mailboxes from administrative deletion without creating unnecessary duplicate copies, minimizing cloud storage expansion.
2. **Direct API Collection:** When active collection becomes necessary, Casepoint uses native cloud connectors to pull custodian data directly into the platform. Legal teams can target specific date ranges, file extensions, or keyword parameters, collecting only the ESI relevant to the dispute. Bypassing corporate IT queues accelerates the collection timeline from weeks to hours.

Because the collected records flow directly into Casepoint ingestion engine, the platform maintains a continuous chain of custody. File hash values (MD5 and SHA-256) are calculated at the moment of collection and matched against the processed output, verifying that no evidence was altered during transfer.

### Ingestion, Culling, and Early Case Assessment
Once files enter the processing pipeline, Casepoint applies automated ingestion filters to reduce the total data volume before attorney review begins:
* **DeNISTing:** The system identifies and removes system files, application binaries, and standard operating system libraries based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reference database.
* **File Deduplication:** Casepoint calculates cryptographic hashes across the entire document collection, identifying duplicate emails, forwarded attachments, and redundant file copies at either the custodian level or the global case level.
* **Email Threading:** The platform groups related email conversations into logical threads, identifying inclusive emails that contain the full conversational context and suppressing redundant intermediate replies.
* **Metadata Extraction and OCR:** Ingestion automatically extracts hidden metadata, including author details, edit timestamps, revision counts, and GPS coordinates. Scanned paper exhibits and image files undergo optical character recognition (OCR) to generate searchable text layers.

During Early Case Assessment (ECA), legal teams use Casepoint visual data analytics to analyze document clusters, communication networks, and concept maps. Review managers can run keyword search term reports to identify over-inclusive queries, test potential search strings, and estimate downstream review costs before assigning documents to contract attorneys.

### Review Tools and AI Capabilities

When documents advance to the review phase, Casepoint provides a modern interface equipped with AI-assisted review tools called CaseAssist. Reviewers can conduct linear document review, batch-tag privileged records, apply dynamic redactions, and run Technology-Assisted Review (TAR).

CaseAssist applies active learning algorithms that monitor reviewer coding decisions in real time. As senior attorneys code documents for relevance and privilege, the system continuously reprioritizes the remaining document population, surfacing the most critical evidence first. This automated prioritization accelerates review velocity, allowing litigation teams to identify key case facts early in discovery.

## Why Co-Counsel Evidence Sharing Creates Discovery Bottlenecks

While Casepoint provides a unified environment for internal corporate teams and primary law firms, managing multi-party litigation introduces operational friction. In complex commercial disputes, joint defense actions, and cross-border regulatory investigations, lead counsel must coordinate with multiple outside entities: co-counsel, local counsel, joint defense steering committees, testifying expert witnesses, and opposing counsel.

Sharing large evidence sets across these disparate parties exposes key administrative constraints within enterprise eDiscovery platforms.

### The Review Seat Licensing Hurdle
Casepoint controls platform access through role-based security configurations. To review documents inside the live case database, every external attorney, expert witness, or paralegal must be provisioned with a secure user account. 

For primary trial teams, this role-based control is essential. However, when a firm needs to share a discrete set of 500 deposition exhibits with a specialized engineering expert, or provide local counsel with read-only access to motion drafts and court filings, provisioning full eDiscovery seats creates unnecessary overhead:
* User accounts require administrative setup, credential management, and security onboarding.
* External law firms often resist logging into multiple disparate discovery platforms across different client matters.
* Adding temporary external users can trigger platform user fees or complicate annual licensing agreements.

### The External Production Dilemma

When litigation teams avoid provisioning external review seats, they resort to exporting formal discovery productions. Casepoint generates standard legal production formats, including Concordance DAT files, Opticon image cross-reference files, extracted text folders, and native file directories.

However, delivering these massive multi-gigabyte production archives to outside parties introduces a different set of problems:
* Standard email systems reject large litigation productions and archive attachments outright.
* Legacy FTP and SFTP servers require technical configuration, lack document preview capabilities, and provide poor visibility into recipient activity.
* Consumer file-sharing tools lack the audit trails, granular permissions, and data sovereignty required for sensitive litigation exhibits.

### Solving Discovery Handoffs with Fast.io Workspaces
To bridge this collaboration gap, many litigation practices deploy a complementary cloud workspace platform like Fast.io alongside their core eDiscovery engine. Fast.io provides secure cloud workspaces designed for organized client and co-counsel delivery, allowing litigation teams to distribute production sets, deposition videos, and trial exhibits without the overhead of user provisioning.

Instead of forcing an expert witness or co-counsel through full eDiscovery software onboarding, the firm creates a matter-specific [workspace](/product/workspaces/) organized by witness, motion, or production volume. 

```
Matter-Acme-v-Beta/
├── 01_Pleadings_and_Orders/
├── 02_Productions_Export/
│   ├── Vol001_Plaintiff_Production_2026/
│   └── Vol002_Defendant_Production_2026/
├── 03_Deposition_Transcripts_and_Video/
│   ├── 2026-03-15_Smith_Deposition/
│   └── 2026-04-10_Jones_Deposition/
└── 04_Expert_Reports_and_Working_Papers/
```

Through Fast.io, litigation teams configure custom [client portals](/product/portals/) and branded shares to manage evidence exchange:
* **Scoped, Expiring Access:** Teams can generate durable or auto-expiring share links for specific folders, ensuring external experts retain access only for the duration of their retention.
* **Account-Free Delivery:** Outside collaborators can review exhibits, search file contents, and stream high-definition deposition videos directly in their browser without registering for an account or managing passwords.
* **Inbound Evidence Collection:** Using a dedicated Receive share, firms allow clients and third-party witnesses to upload records directly into the matter workspace from any device, bypassing email size limitations.
* **Immutable Chain of Custody:** Fast.io maintains an append-only audit log that documents every file upload, download, preview, and permission change. This provides litigation managers with an immutable record of when co-counsel or expert witnesses accessed specific case exhibits.
* **Per-File Version History:** Document revisions are tracked automatically. When co-counsel updates an expert affidavit or draft exhibit list, prior versions are preserved and accessible, preventing version confusion.

Fast.io also accelerates document intake through [Metadata Views](/product/document-data-extraction/). Litigation teams can define required fields in plain English, such as Contract Date, Signatory, Governing Law, or Bates Range. The platform automatically extracts these typed fields from scanned PDFs, Word documents, and spreadsheets, populating a sortable, queryable table without manual data entry.

For security and data protection, Fastio runs on cloud infrastructure partners, including Google Cloud Platform and Cloudflare, that are certified to industry-leading security standards. Data is protected with encryption in transit and at rest, alongside granular access controls at the organization, workspace, folder, and file levels.

Organizations can evaluate Fast.io through a 14-day free trial, which requires a credit card. Paid subscription tiers include the Starter, Business, and Growth plans, with transparent rates documented on the Fast.io [pricing page](/pricing/). This transparent pricing allows litigation boutiques and corporate legal departments to scale their external collaboration surfaces predictably alongside their primary eDiscovery systems.

## Comparing Casepoint Pricing Models and Total Discovery Costs

Understanding Casepoint pricing requires navigating enterprise software procurement practices. Unlike small-firm practice management tools that publish transparent per-seat monthly rates, enterprise eDiscovery vendors traditionally operate a quote-based commercial model. Casepoint follows this enterprise pattern, tailoring proposals to the specific data volumes, software modules, and hosting configurations of each client.

### The Data Volume and Modular Licensing Model
Casepoint pricing is structured around the specific applications an organization requires and the volume of data hosted within the platform. Organizations that only require legal hold automation can license that module independently, while full-service litigation teams license the complete discovery, processing, and review suite.

The core cost components in an enterprise Casepoint deployment include:
1. **Monthly Hosting Fees (Per Gigabyte):** The primary recurring cost driver is the volume of active and archive data stored in the platform. Hosting rates are typically calculated on a monthly per-gigabyte (GB) basis. As litigation databases expand with modern multimedia evidence, high-resolution scans, and forensic system images, hosting fees represent the largest component of the recurring discovery budget.
2. **Data Ingestion and Processing Fees:** Some procurement agreements include one-time processing charges for ingesting raw data, extracting text, calculating cryptographic hashes, and generating document view proxies. In other contracts, Casepoint offers all-inclusive pricing where processing is bundled into the monthly hosting rate.
3. **Module Licensing:** Deploying specialized components, such as Casepoint Legal Hold, Casepoint FOIA (for public records processing), or advanced AI analytics, impacts total licensing costs.
4. **Professional and Technical Support Services:** While Casepoint is designed for self-service administration, complex matters often require specialized project management, custom data parsing, or forensic collection consulting from Casepoint professional services team.

Because litigation matters fluctuate in scope, Casepoint structures agreements to accommodate changing data sizes and custodian volumes. Prospective buyers must contact Casepoint directly to obtain a customized quote based on expected annual litigation caseloads.

### Strengths and Tradeoffs

Before committing to an enterprise eDiscovery rollout, legal operations managers and IT directors must weigh the platform demonstrated strengths against its operational constraints:

**Platform Strengths:**
* **Unified Single-Platform Architecture:** Eliminates manual data transfers between legal hold, collection, processing, and review, strengthening chain of custody and reducing vendor sprawl.
* **Unmatched Government Security Authorizations:** FedRAMP High and DoD IL6 authorizations make it an ideal choice for federal agencies, defense contractors, and corporations handling regulated unclassified or classified records.
* **Automated Custodian Synchronization:** Real-time HR directory integrations ensure legal hold tracking reflects ongoing personnel changes, minimizing spoliation liabilities.
* **Advanced In-Place Preservation:** Built-in connectors for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and Slack enable targeted data collections without creating bloated data duplicates.

**Platform Tradeoffs:**
* **Enterprise Deployment Overhead:** Casepoint is designed for sophisticated litigation environments. Implementing the system across a law firm or corporate department requires dedicated administrative training, workflow configuration, and data migration planning.
* **Quote-Gated Pricing:** The absence of publicly listed rates makes budgeting difficult for smaller law practices with unpredictable litigation dockets.
* **Collaboration Barriers for External Parties:** Provisioning external co-counsel and independent expert witnesses inside the platform introduces user licensing and administrative friction, often necessitating secondary file-sharing tools for exhibit delivery.

### Final Verdict: Is Casepoint Right for Your Organization?
Casepoint eDiscovery is an exceptional fit for government agencies, corporate legal departments, and mid-sized to large law firms seeking to consolidate their litigation technology stack into a secure cloud environment. Its unified database model and government-grade security authorizations establish it as one of the most capable eDiscovery platforms on the market.

However, organizations adopting Casepoint should plan for its collaboration boundaries. Pairing Casepoint heavy processing and review power with a dedicated, lightweight collaboration workspace like Fast.io ensures that internal litigation teams maintain defensible discovery standards while external co-counsel and clients enjoy smooth, friction-free document exchange.

## Frequently asked questions

### What is Casepoint eDiscovery used for?

Casepoint eDiscovery is an enterprise cloud platform used by corporations, law firms, and government agencies to manage the entire litigation and data discovery lifecycle. Key use cases include automating legal hold notices, collecting data from cloud sources like Microsoft 365 and Slack, processing and culling document volumes, conducting AI-assisted document review, and generating formal court productions.

### How does Casepoint handle legal hold automation?

Casepoint automates legal holds by integrating directly with enterprise human resources directories like Microsoft Entra ID and Okta to track custodian employment status. The platform dispatches customized hold notices, sends recurring compliance reminders, routes escalations to managers when acknowledgments are delayed, and captures defensible audit logs with timestamps and custodian questionnaire responses.

### Is Casepoint cloud-based?

Casepoint is a cloud-native platform built as a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service application. It operates in secure cloud environments holding FedRAMP High, DoD IL5, and DoD IL6 authorizations, eliminating the need for law firms or agencies to deploy local physical servers or maintain dedicated on-premises infrastructure.

### How does Casepoint pricing work?

Casepoint uses a custom quote-based pricing model tailored to an organization specific data volumes, software modules, and litigation requirements. Pricing is commonly calculated on a monthly per-gigabyte hosting rate, with modular licensing options for legal hold, FOIA response, and advanced AI review tools. Organizations must request a consultation to obtain specific pricing.

### How do litigation teams share evidence with co-counsel using Casepoint?

Teams can grant co-counsel role-based access to specific case databases within Casepoint, which requires provisioning user accounts and managing access permissions. Alternatively, teams export formal discovery production sets (DAT, text, and native files) and distribute them to external parties using secure cloud workspace platforms like Fast.io to avoid per-user licensing overhead and file size restrictions.

## About Fast.io

Fast.io provides shared workspaces where people and AI agents work on the same files, with built-in semantic search and citation-backed chat over what they hold. Agents reach it through a remote MCP server at https://mcp.fast.io/mcp, a REST API at https://api.fast.io/current/, and a command line client published on npm as @vividengine/fastio-cli.