Inventus » Case Law

Virginia Court Orders Predictive Coding

rod_roberson — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:43:30 +0000

Last week, a state judge in Virginia’s 20^th judicial circuit ordered that defendants use predictive coding, despite plaintiff’s objections that the technology is not as effective as purely human review.Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P. d/b/a Dulles Jet Center, et al For a full copy of the Law.com article click here.

Predictive coding software assists document reviewers by applying computerized learning techniques to find responsive information. Its use is currently being contested in the widely followed labor dispute case Monique da Silva Moore, et al. v. Publicis Group SA, et al. But this Virginia case, Global Aerospace Inc.,, may be the first where predictive coding was actually ordered.

Loudoun Circuit Court Judge James Chamblin wrote, “Having heard argument with regard to the Motion of Landow Aviation … it is hereby ordered Defendants shall be allowed to proceed with the use of predictive coding for purposes of processing and production of electronically stored information.” JudgeChamblin acknowledged that the receiving party will still have the opportunity to question the completeness of the contents of the production or the ongoing use of predictive coding.” The court order allowed 60 days for processing, and another 60 days for production.

The Judge’s order was in response to the Defendant’s motion requesting either that predictive technology be allowed or that the Plaintiff’s pay any additional costs associated with traditional review.

Defendants expect predictive coding to reduce the data set from 8 terabytes data set to a few hundred gigabytes.

Peck’s Predictive Coding Ruling Upheld

rod_roberson — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:44:49 +0000

Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck’s February ruling allowing the use of predictive coding, aka computer-assisted review, to weed through millions of electronic documents in discovery has been upheld by a federal judge. See LTN’s full article here.

Discovery Subcommittee Reaches No Consensus on Preservation Issues

rod_roberson — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:45:21 +0000

David J. Kessler and Emily Johnston from Fulbright & Jaworksi, L.L.P.’s e-Discovery and Information Governance practice have posted an article on Fulbright’s website about the Subcommittee’s recent Mini-Conference on perservation held on September 9, 2011. Ms. Johnston attended the conference as an observer and reports that the group met to discuss the possibility of FRCP rule changes to address preservation issues. While the article concludes that the meeting ended without any general consensus, it does provide good insight into particular judges’ views on the subject. Read the full article here.

Judge Scheindlin Withdraws E-Discovery Opinion

rod_roberson — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:00:17 +0000

Judge Scheindlin has withdrawn her February 7th opinion in Nat’l Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. K&L Gates has commentary and a link to the opinion here.

Judge Scheindlin Issues New E-Discovery Opinion

rod_roberson — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:06:30 +0000

Recent Decision by Zubulake judge, Shira Scheindlin, Addresses Both Form of Production and Cooperation

Judge Shira Scheindlin’s new opinion, National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, reiterates the importance of metadata and cooperation in e-discovery—two distinct e-discovery notions as one relates to form of production and the other to counsel’s conduct during the discovery process. This opinion makes a number of important points regarding both concepts, including “that certain key metadata fields are an integral part of public records”, that “production of a collection of static images without any means of permitting the use of electronic search tools is an inappropriate downgrading of the ESI” and “all lawyers … need to make greater efforts to comply with the expectations that courts now demand of counsel with respect to expensive and time-consuming document production.” Judge Scheindlin even goes on to provide a list of fields she requires for electronic production.

Popular e-discovery expert, Ralph Losey has a link to the full opinion here.

7th Circuit Court Orders E-Discovery Homework

rod_roberson — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:10:01 +0000

A recent case out of the Northern District of Illinois ordered not only a phased approach to discovery, but for the parties involved to do some homework as well. The parties were expected to be up to speed on both the Seventh Circuit’s Electronic Discovery Pilot Program’s Principles, as well as, the Sedona Conference’s Cooperation Proclamation. And while the Pilot Program is the work of the Seventh Circuit, many judges across the country will continue to keep a close eye on its progress in determining how to navigate through their own e-discovery issues.

With Inventus’ operational headquarters based in Chicago, our litigation consultants are routinely engaged in matters being guided by the principles set out by the Seventh Circuit and the Sedona Conference.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit case (Tamburo v. Dworkin) can be found here.

Courts Accept a Phased Discovery Approach

rod_roberson — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:18:00 +0000

A phased approach to discovery is both a reasonable and proportional method to obtain relevant electronic information. There is a growing number of opinions espousing this notion, one of which is Haka v. Lincoln County stemming from the Western District of Wisconsin. In this case, the court ordered a phased approach to discovery as well as cost sharing when it found that the cost of search of all the data was disproportionate to recovery. Inventus’ Discovery Solutions team focuses on helping its clients draft collection, search and review protocols which reflect these principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

Judge Waxse Issues New Opinion on Clawbacks

rod_roberson — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:17:51 +0000

Federal Rule of Evidence 502 was enacted in 2008 as a direct result of the ever-increasing volume of which data litigators face. Premised on FRE 502 is another form of protection from waiver: the clawback agreement. In a recent case out of the District of Kansas, Magistrate Judge David Waxse entered just such a clawback order, but without an underlying agreement between the parties. Ralph Losey—an expert in the field of e-discovery—has an excellent analysis of Judge Waxse’s newsworthy decision on his blog here.

To read Federal Rule of Evidence 502 itself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm.

Judge Grimm Issues Victor Stanley II Opinion

rod_roberson — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:54:27 +0000

Maryland Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm has been at the forefront of e-discovery legal analysis and has published numerous judicial opinions related to the topic. His latest opinion comes with a new twist related to sanctions: jail time! Below is K&L Gates’ link to Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., No. MJG-06-2662 (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2010). Also provided below is Judge Grimm’s very own e-discovery protocol. Following it is highly recommended for avoiding the sanctions ordered in Victor Stanley II.

http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/uploads/file/Victor%20Stanley%20II.pdf