Posts Tagged ‘caselaw’
hide story details [-]
- May 8th
-
Partial Recall: Why Lawyers Can’t Have (And Really Don’t Need) All Relevant Documents – Part II
This is the continuation of my article from last week entitled “Partial Recall: Why Lawyers Can’t Have (And Really Don’t Need) All Relevant Documents” I find it exceptional the Court found it reasonable and proportional for Biomet to follow eDiscovery procedures predicted to result in the production of only 40% of the relevant documents (40% recall)—a number that might make some attorneys and judges cringe. I don’t know of any other case that has so clearly approved of such a low recall value. And I think the Court was right to do so. For one thing, studies show that even using the best information retrieval technologies at extraordinary expense, recall in many cases doesn’t reach much higher than 70%. Perfection or near-perfection are not even options. Additionally, historical eDiscovery practices have likely resulted in significantly lower recall values. As many [...]
posted at 9:00am on May 8th
- May 2nd
-
Partial Recall: Why Lawyers Can’t Have (And Really Don’t Need) All Relevant Documents – Part I
I can’t recall how many times I’ve received demands from opposing counsel for “all” relevant documents in my client’s possession. Indeed, many court opinions support such an entitlement. Yet countless studies (Blair and Maron, TREC, etc.) show that even the best information retrieval technologies and practices fall well short of perfection. Courts have begun to recognize the impossibility of perfection in eDiscovery, though many still seem reluctant to depart too far from an expectation of perfection. But in a freshly released opinion arising in the context of a multi-district litigation, Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. of the Northern District of Indiana ventures further than other courts, recognizing that parties may satisfy their discovery obligations under the Federal Rules even with productions that fall well short of total recall. Below, I summarize the opinion and explore the implications of imperfection in [...]
posted at 9:00am on May 2nd
- April 28th
-
Citing Proportionality, Court Declines to Require Defendant to Redo Discovery Utilizing Only Predictive
In re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., NO. 3:12-MD-2391 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013) In this product liability case, Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee objected to Biomet’s reliance on keyword searching to initially reduce the volume o…
posted at 4:42pm on Apr 28th
- April 22nd
-
eDJ’s First Predictive Coding Boot Camp A Roaring Success
eDiscoveryJournal’s first Predictive Coding Boot Camp was phenomenally successful. Led by adjunct analyst Karl Schieneman – one of the foremost Predictive Coding experts around, the Boot Camp featured a highly informative Judges Roundtable, a session focused on lifting the covers off Predictive Coding, and a session on validation.
posted at 10:09am on Apr 22nd
- April 12th
-
Da Silva Moore: Second Circuit Denies Petition for Writ of Mandamus Compelling Recusal of Magistrate Judge Peck
In what is possibly the final chapter to last year’s Da Silva Moore predictive coding saga, the Second Circuit has denied Plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the recusal of Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck. For those unfamiliar wit…
posted at 2:24pm on Apr 12th
- April 4th
-
Availability of Clawback Order Thwarts Claim of Undue Burden Based on Cost to Review
In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc. ERISA Litig., No. AW 09-2661, 2013 WL 1187909 (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2013) In this brief opinion, the court considered Defendants’ claim that the burden of producing the requested ESI outweighed its potential benefit to…
posted at 10:40am on Apr 4th
- April 1st
-
Privileged Communications Have to Actually be Privileged to be Immune
The brief order by the First Department Appellate Division doesn’t delve into much background (or really any background at all) as to the facts of the present case, however, it does shed some light on discovery matters. The prior order had directed t…
posted at 11:00am on Apr 1st
-
Court Imposes Rule 16(f)(1) Sanctions against EEOC for Causing Unnecessary Burdens and Delays
EEOC v. The Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Inc., No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2013) Previously in this case, the court ordered broad discovery of the claimants’ social media, text messages and email. (See a summary of that op…
posted at 8:48am on Apr 1st
- March 19th
-
Court Denies Motion for Protective Order or Cost-Shifting Related to Request to Utilize Sixty-Seven Search Terms
Juster Acquisition Co., LLC v. N. Hudson Sewerage Auth., No. 12-3427 (JLL), 2013 WL 541972 (D.N.J. Feb. 11, 2013) In this case, the court denied Defendant’s motion for a protective order “regarding the sixty-seven (67) electronic word searches” …
posted at 5:22pm on Mar 19th
-
eDiscovery cost shifting: the test is imperfect, but it works – Lexology (registration)
eDiscovery cost shifting: the test is imperfect, but it worksLexology (registration)We cover cost-shifting in eDiscovery fairly often. In fact, this post is barely a week old. A recent case out of New Jersey, Juster Acquisition Co., LLC v. North Hudson…
posted at 6:38am on Mar 19th
