<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>eDiscovery Journal &#187; caselaw</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ediscoveryjournal.com/tag/caselaw/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com</link>
	<description>Your one-stop source for eDiscovery perspective</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:53:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Partial Recall: Why Lawyers Can&#8217;t Have (And Really Don&#8217;t Need) All Relevant Documents &#8211; Part II</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/05/partial-recall-why-lawyers-cant-have-and-really-dont-need-all-relevant-documents-part-ii/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/05/partial-recall-why-lawyers-cant-have-and-really-dont-need-all-relevant-documents-part-ii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 13:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Fluhr</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ediscovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=252260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the continuation of my article from last week entitled “Partial Recall: Why Lawyers Can&#8217;t Have (And Really Don&#8217;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)&#8212;a number that might make some attorneys and judges cringe.  I don&#8217;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&#8217;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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/05/partial-recall-why-lawyers-cant-have-and-really-dont-need-all-relevant-documents-part-ii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partial Recall: Why Lawyers Can&#8217;t Have (And Really Don&#8217;t Need) All Relevant Documents &#8211; Part I</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/05/partial-recall-why-lawyers-cant-have-and-really-dont-need-all-relevant-documents-part-i/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/05/partial-recall-why-lawyers-cant-have-and-really-dont-need-all-relevant-documents-part-i/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 13:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Fluhr</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ediscovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Assisted Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=252255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I can&#8217;t recall how many times I&#8217;ve received demands from opposing counsel for &#8220;all&#8221; relevant documents in my client&#8217;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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/05/partial-recall-why-lawyers-cant-have-and-really-dont-need-all-relevant-documents-part-i/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Citing Proportionality, Court Declines to Require Defendant to Redo Discovery Utilizing Only Predictive</title>
		<link>http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2013/04/citing-proportionality-court-declines.html</link>
		<comments>http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2013/04/citing-proportionality-court-declines.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>eDJ Syndicator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?guid=f64da2d52521a2f5f3ac89fdab4cd46f</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/04/citing-proportionality-court-declines-to-require-defendant-to-redo-discovery-utilizing-only-predictive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>eDJ&#8217;s First Predictive Coding Boot Camp A Roaring Success</title>
		<link>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/04/edjs-first-predictive-coding-boot-camp-a-roaring-success/</link>
		<comments>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/04/edjs-first-predictive-coding-boot-camp-a-roaring-success/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Barry Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Original Journal Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law_firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predictive Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?p=251441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/04/edjs-first-predictive-coding-boot-camp-a-roaring-success/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Da Silva Moore: Second Circuit Denies Petition for Writ of Mandamus Compelling Recusal of Magistrate Judge Peck</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/ediscoverylaw/klgates/~3/GCthj2krdko/</link>
		<comments>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/ediscoverylaw/klgates/~3/GCthj2krdko/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:24:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>eDJ Syndicator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/2013/04/articles/news-updates/da-silva-moore-second-circuit-denies-petition-for-writ-of-mandamus-compelling-recusal-of-magistrate-judge-peck/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.&#160; For those unfamiliar wit...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/04/da-silva-moore-second-circuit-denies-petition-for-writ-of-mandamus-compelling-recusal-of-magistrate-judge-peck/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Availability of Clawback Order Thwarts Claim of Undue Burden Based on Cost to Review</title>
		<link>http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2013/04/availability-of-clawback-order-thwarts.html</link>
		<comments>http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2013/04/availability-of-clawback-order-thwarts.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>eDJ Syndicator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?guid=dacb029fc46ae1449486198cb6fd465f</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc. ERISA Litig., No. AW 09-2661, 2013 WL 1187909 (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2013)&#160;In this brief opinion, the court considered Defendants’ claim that the burden of producing the requested ESI outweighed its potential benefit to...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/04/availability-of-clawback-order-thwarts-claim-of-undue-burden-based-on-cost-to-review-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privileged Communications Have to Actually be Privileged to be Immune</title>
		<link>http://ellblog.com/privileged-communications-have-to-actually-be-privileged-to-be-immune/</link>
		<comments>http://ellblog.com/privileged-communications-have-to-actually-be-privileged-to-be-immune/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>eDJ Syndicator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ellblog.com/?p=4140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ellblog.com/privileged-communications-have-to-actually-be-privileged-to-be-immune/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Imposes Rule 16(f)(1) Sanctions against EEOC for Causing Unnecessary Burdens and Delays</title>
		<link>http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2013/04/httpwwwinsidecounselcom20130329beware.html</link>
		<comments>http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2013/04/httpwwwinsidecounselcom20130329beware.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>eDJ Syndicator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?guid=29e940df6f17a60dc7f01aa91dab1c45</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/04/court-imposes-rule-16f1-sanctions-against-eeoc-for-causing-unnecessary-burdens-and-delays-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Denies Motion for Protective Order or Cost-Shifting Related to Request to Utilize Sixty-Seven Search Terms</title>
		<link>http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2013/03/court-denies-motion-for-protective.html</link>
		<comments>http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2013/03/court-denies-motion-for-protective.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>eDJ Syndicator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Blogosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?guid=b0b0948a4d23ca641fcc1d662a80c9fc</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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” ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/03/court-denies-motion-for-protective-order-or-cost-shifting-related-to-request-to-utilize-sixty-seven-search-terms-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>eDiscovery cost shifting: the test is imperfect, but it works &#8211; Lexology (registration)</title>
		<link>http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&#038;fd=R&#038;usg=AFQjCNFRujO2_NbzJtiel69FsT18rqKbUQ&#038;url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98bca203-8636-41d6-99ea-aaa1381f5f71</link>
		<comments>http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&#038;fd=R&#038;usg=AFQjCNFRujO2_NbzJtiel69FsT18rqKbUQ&#038;url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98bca203-8636-41d6-99ea-aaa1381f5f71#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>eDJ Syndicator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery_practice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ediscoveryjournal.com/?guid=73fc1bbfb34c797025234ec1a8d6d101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ediscoveryjournal.com/2013/03/ediscovery-cost-shifting-the-test-is-imperfect-but-it-works-lexology-registration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
