This is a comment of the federal case Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182 (2012).
The author states what is the real meaning of the Da Silva ruling for him:
- “The Court did not order the use of predictive coding” …
- “Computer-assisted review is not required in all cases”…
- “Predictive coding technology can still be expensive”
- “Process and methodology are as important as the technology utilized”
From the article:
“The final excerpt drives home the points made in a recent Forbes article involving this and another predictive coding case (Kleen Products). The first point is that there are a range of technology-assisted review (TAR) tools in the litigator’s tool belt that will often be used together in eDiscovery, and predictive coding technology is one of those tools. Secondly, none of these tools will provide accurate results unless they are relatively easy to use and used properly. In other words, the carpenter is just as important as the hammer. Applying these guideposts and demanding cooperation and transparency between the parties will help the bench usher in a new era of eDiscovery technology that is fair and just for everyone.”
The full text is available at http://www.clearwellsystems.com…
Related document: Monique Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & Msl Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (2012)