http://ow.ly/76PxQ
An article by Jason Krause on the eDiscovery Daily Blog.
This article touches on predictive coding and states that there is still no clear case law example that approves the use of a predictive coding workflow.
The article states, "Judge Peck is probably best known in eDiscovery circles for the March 19, 2009 decision, William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 256 F.R.D. 134, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Peck, M.J.). In it, he called for "careful thought, quality control, testing and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or 'keywords' to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information". A link to the case opinion is provided in the article.
The article further states, "But other commenters are quick to point out the limitations of predictive coding. Ralph Losey expands on Peck’s argument, describing specific and defensible deployment of predictive coding (or Artificial Intelligence in Losey’s piece). He says predictive coding can speed up the process, but that the failure rate is still too high. Losey points out “the state of technology and law today still requires eyeballs on all ESI before it goes out the door and into the hands of the enemy,” he writes. “The negative consequences of disclosure of secrets, especially attorney-client privilege and work product privilege secrets, is simply too high.”"
P.S. There are other articles posted on the Litigation Support Technology & News blog that provide studies that show "eyballs on all ESI" has a surprisingly high failure rate too.
0 comments:
Post a Comment