http://ow.ly/6YnVw
An article on law.com on the LTN webpage written by Mark Michels.
This article discusses some of the recent commentary made by Judges regarding the use of advanced technology during the discovery process.
The article references other recent articles, and court opinions authored by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, Magistrate Judge John Facciola, and Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm. The article provides links to the other materials referenced by Mr. Michels.
The article also states, "In Peck's view, if there is a challenge he would ask: (1) what was done, (2) did the process produce defensible results, and (3) whether the process "produced responsive documents with reasonably high recall and high precision."
The article also provides a statement regarding the Sedona conference view, "The Sedona Conference summarized the defensibility issue succinctly: A party must be prepared "to demonstrate to opposing parties, courts, and government agencies, that its chosen method and tool accurately captured a reasonably sufficient number of the relevant, nonprivileged [electronically stored information] in existence, and that the remaining unreviewed and unproduced ESI is irrelevant.""
The article also discusses Daubert proceedings, and the importance of complying with the Federal Rules of Evidence to validate the process being used during the attorney review phase. The author also provides a link to another important resource on this topic provided by the EDRM. "A particularly helpful data sampling reference is the EDRM Search Guide, Appendix 2 Application of Sampling to E-Discovery Search Result Evaluation. The data sampling plan will require considerable thought and should be documented carefully to defend the tool and process used."
No comments:
Post a Comment