Plaintiffs Object to Predictive Coding Order, Argue Lack of Transparency in eDiscovery Process

http://ow.ly/9h9uX

An article by Philip Favro posted on the e-Discovery 2.0 blog.

This article provides further information about the recent stipulation and order in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe case, where U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck requested a protocol for the use of predictive coding technology.

The article states the the plaintiff's are now objecting to the proposed protocol, "in challenging the order issued by the Honorable Andrew J. Peck, the plaintiffs argue that the protocol will not provide an appropriate level of transparency into the predictive coding process. In particular, the plaintiffs assert that the ordered process does not establish “the necessary standards” and “quality assurance” levels required to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702."  The article then provides further analysis of the aforementioned rules.

The article further states, "Now that the plaintiffs have filed their objections, the eDiscovery world must now wait and see what will happen next. The defendant will certainly respond in kind, vigorously defending the ordered process with declarations from its own experts. Whether the plaintiffs or the defendant will carry the day depends on how the district court views these issues, particularly the issue of transparency. Simply put, the question is whether the process at issue is sufficiently transparent to satisfy Rule 26 and Rule 702?"