Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, a Delaware state court judge, ordered sua sponte the parties to use predictive coding and to hire the same e-discovery vendor.
In particular, while deciding a motion for summary judgment for the defendants and denying plaintiff’s motion to strike counterclaims, the judge ordered the parties to use predictive coding:
“This seems to me to be an ideal non-expedited case in which the parties would benefit from using predictive coding. I would like you all, if you do not want to use predictive coding, to show cause why this is not a case where predictive coding is the way to go.
I would like you all to talk about a single discovery provider that could be used to warehouse both sides’ documents to be your single vendor. Pick one of these wonderful discovery super powers that is able to maintain the integrity of both side’s documents and insure that no one can access the other side’s information. If you cannot agree on a suitable discovery vendor, you can submit names to me and I will pick one for you…The problem is that these types of indemnification claims can generate a huge amount of documents. That’s why I would really encourage you all, instead of burning lots of hours with people reviewing, it seems to me this is the type of non-expedited case where we could all benefit from some new technology use.”
The full text is available at http://ralphlosey.files.wordpress.com…
(relevant part at 66-67)
Related document: Matthew Nelson, Judicial Activism Taken to New Heights in Latest EORHB (Hooters) Predictive Coding Case