http://ow.ly/acYK1
This is an article by Karl Schieneman posted on the Doc Review MD Blog.
This article discusses the case of Da Silva Moore, in which Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck had requested a protocol from the parties regarding the use of predictive coding technology during the attorney review process.
The article states, "The common strand in both of these matters is offering some comfort to an adversary that most of the ESI that is related to a case is in fact being produced and the gaps in production are not intentional but are caused by search and retrieval limitations.
Both cases are about this same issue and are less about predictive coding than people realize.
The Da Silva Moore plaintiffs are comfortable that predictive coding works better than key word searching. What they are not comfortable with is how they can be sure they received the relevant documents and that is what is at the heart of their debate over the size of the sampling to be done to validate the process. TheKleen plaintiffs want predictive coding to be used because they know identifying key words in an antitrust case is really hard to do. They believe their best chance to find the relevant ESI they hope to find is to use some form of predictive coding across a wide number of data sources and custodians. The key theme here with both parties is a lack of comfort from parties receiving the ESI on what they are receiving and a desire to receive what they are entitled to."
No comments:
Post a Comment