Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Karl Schieneman. Published: 2013-02-11 09:00:47  At least a dozen friends have inquired about my health after the big push of Global Aerospace news came out last week, since there were no blog posts by me. As a participant in the case, I figured it was more important to let others weigh in on the significance of this decision as a precedent that predictive coding can be defended in a court.The verdict came despite fierce opposition by a very well respected, (and deservedly so I might add), Amlaw 20 law firm which ultimately settled the case after the judge issued his order allowing the use of predictive coding. It is also worth mentioning that Judge Chamberlin was an unknown quantity going in, unlike Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore. As many of you know, Judge Peck had been embracing and educating lawyers and judges on predictive coding for at least a year before he had the chance to author an opinion. With the decision, all of our prior research pointing to broad judicial acceptance of using TAR was validated, and the case is now in the books.So what is there left to say?  What eDJ Group and Review Less survey data of predictive coding use thus far suggests, many participants are culling substantially less data than was culled out in the high profile Global Aerospace case. That case culled out 87% of the data, placing it in the upper quartile of preliminary research we have compiled.One would think, if you ever were going to be careful, and perhaps review more than is necessary, this would be the case. But the Global Aerospace predictive coding team made a decision early on to use the tools as they were designed and drive them in fifth gear instead of first gear to gain a true sense of the defensibility of this approach. This point was made in the Wall Street Journal article I was quoted in last week.These results when compared to the data we are seeing, calls out for substantial legal education on how to use these tools.  eDJ Group and Review Less are taking a strong step to fill this void and anticipate providing 8 – 12 Predictive Coding Boot Camps in cities around the country. These will be presented in a vendor neutral manner with significant judicial involvement in this CLE program. We are able to also give perspectives from pioneers, and will provide some testing of attendees to provide us with feedback on the extent the attendees grasp how to use and defend predictive coding results.We hope to seed the industry with predictive coding users in a fair and neutral manner to prepare lawyers and corporations for an understanding of different approaches and validation of the results. For more information contact Marilyn@edjgroupinc.com.eDiscoveryJournal Contributor Karl Schieneman

0 0 votes
Article Rating