http://ow.ly/9mYwn
An article by Charles Holloway posted on the Milllnet Smart e-Discovery Blog.
This article looks at some of the commentary about U.S. Magistrate Andrew J. Peck's recent order requesting the parties in a case to provide a protocol to use predictive coding technology for the attorney review being undertaken by the defendant.
The article discusses the case of Monique Da Silva Moore, et al v Publicis Groupe and MSL Group, and provides a link to information about that case. In addition, other articles discussing Judge Peck's opinion are also referenced in the article.
The article provides an interesting quote from Judge Peck regarding what his decision means for eDiscovery, "The opinion does not mean that computer-assisted review must be used in all cases, he says. Nor should the opinion be considered an endorsement of any particular vendor or of any particular review tool.
What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that computer-assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review. Counsel no longer have to worry about being the “first” or “guinea pig” for judicial acceptance of computer-assisted review. As with keywords or any other technological solution to e-discovery, counsel must design an appropriate process, including use of available technology, with appropriate quality control testing, to review and produce relevant ESI while adhering to Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) proportionality. Computer-assisted review now can be considered judicially-approved for use in appropriate cases."
No comments:
Post a Comment