Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Greg Buckles. Published: 2016-03-27 20:00:00Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. 

The simple answer is NO, but it does open the door for parties to request the court’s approval to use PC/TAR techniques for relevance determination. The Pyrrho decision is a quick read and has some interesting notes. In this case, the 3.1 million file collection was extracted from more than 17.6 million files restored from back up tapes using deduplication, custodians and search criteria. This was still considered overly large for full manual review in proportion to the matter. Folks, back up tapes are NOT a preservation repository. One counsel initially proposed using technology to relevance rank the entire collection for more efficient full manual review, but both parties agreed to use full Predictive Coding to minimize attorney time and have a trained system for any new data sources that turn up. So does this mean that every technology provider must support full PC/TAR for UK eDisclosure matters? Similar to the U.S. early bench decisions such as Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe back in 2015, this just opens the door for parties to get court approval when both sides want to use the technology to tackle a big collection. Moreover, there are many different ways to implement machine learning functionality that support different usage cases before and after relevance review, most of which do not require court or opposing parties approval. I was sent an interesting exchange from the Vound Intella forum that demonstrates the natural tendency of a loyal customers to immediately request PC functionality in the wake of the Pyrrho decision. My ongoing analytics adoption research indicates that large scale PC for relevance review is still used in a very small portion of overall matters where the initial cost and potential overproduction of non-relevant docs are justified. I am more interested in providers thinking outside the box and using machine learning for selective collection criteria, trial prep, IG categorization and analysis of opposing productions. The right tool for the right problem is the key.


Greg Buckles wants your feedback, questions or project inquiries at Greg@eDJGroupInc.com. Contact him directly for a ‘Good Karma’ call. His active research topics include analytics, SMB eDiscovery, mobile device discovery, the discovery impact of the cloud, Microsoft’s Office 365/2013 eDiscovery Center and multi-matter discovery. Recent consulting engagements include managing preservation during enterprise migrations, legacy tape eliminations, retention enablement and many more.

Blog perspectives are personal opinions and should not be interpreted as a professional judgment. eDJ consultants are not journalists and perspectives are based on public information. Blog content is neither approved nor reviewed by any providers prior to being posted. Do you want to share your own perspective? eDJ Group is looking for practical, professional informative perspectives free of marketing fluff, hidden agendas or personal/product bias. Outside blogs will clearly indicate the author, company and any relevant affiliations. 

0 0 votes
Article Rating