LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By William A. Ruskin
For those of us who work on document-intensive litigations, take note of Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck's (SDNY.) opinion released on February 24, 2012 in Monique Da Silva Moore, et al. v. Publicis Groupe and MSL Group, Case 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC)(AJP). Judge Peck's decision may be the first federal court opinion approving the use of computer-assisted review in place of "eyes on" document review. Citing recent studies, Judge Peck states "while some lawyers still consider manual review to be the 'gold standard,' that is a myth, as statistics clearly show that computerized searches are at least as accurate, if not more so, than manual review....While this Court recognizes that computer-assisted review is not perfect, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require perfection."
In a thoughtful guest blog on the Forbes.com site, (from which post the photo is reproduced here)Matthew Nelson discusses the significance (or not) of both Judge Peck's case and a second case in the Northen District of Illinois, the Hon. Nan R. Nolan presiding. In that case, Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corporation of America et al, the plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring defendants, among other things to use predictive coding technology in responding to their discovery requests.
Computer assisted review, or, as it is sometimes called, predictive coding, employs the use of a sample set or "seed set" which is reviewed for responsiveness. The "seed set" can then be made available to opposing counsel to approve the responsive/non-responsive determinations made. Interestingly, at least in this case, the court noted that "All of this review to create the seed set was done by senior attorneys (not paralegals, staff attorneys or junior associates)." The seed set is then fed into a program that creates a logic (based on the seed set determinations) and extrapolates to the universe (the negotiated set of data). Predictive coding, in essence, attempts to take the place of burdensome, expensive and time consuming document review.
As the opinion suggests, predictive coding will not work in all cases. According to Judge Peck, "What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that computer-assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review." While the court discussed possible objections under the FRCP, FRE 702 and Daubert, the court did not sufficiently address what happens when one party wants to use predictive coding and the other party objects. In the case, to protect privileged documents that would conceivably be swept in by the computer logic, the parties entered into a clawback agreement which was entered as a court ordert. Unfortunately, in government investigations, parties do not always have the opportunity to have a court enter such an order. So, predictive coding should be used cautiously - perhaps still requiring some "eyes on" document review in handling governmental investigations.
Predictive coding could provide substantial benefits to clients. On the other hand, law firms whose business models depend on leveraging large teams of associates and staff attorneys to conduct document review will increasingly have to explain to their clients why such costly efforts are necessary. Technology may allow medium sized firms to more effectively compete with large firms in cases with substantial discovery. In short, predictive coding makes good sense for the courts, the clients and the Bar.
For more cutting edge commentary on developing issues, visit Toxic Tort Litigation Blog by William A. Ruskin of Epstein Becker & Green.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.
This is great news. I completely agree with Judge Peck’s opinion of approving computer assisted document reviews instead of ‘eyes on’ review. This is definitely going to save lawyers a lot of time, while making it the process easier and more efficient for them. I am quite passionate about improving the way legal contracts are drafted. At the moment, I am working on a project called Ridacto (http://www.ridacto.com), an online platform that uses artificial intelligence to help attorneys draft bulletproof legal contracts by reviewing the document for key terms and potential terms.