Monique da Silva Moore, et al. v. Publicis Group SA, et al, 11 Civ. 1279
The foregoing link is something of a novelty. It is a link to the opinion by US Magistrate Andrew Peck, approving the use of predictive coding (computer-assisted review) as part of e-discovery.
It is not a pointer to an article with no link to the opinion. It is not a pointer to an article on the district judge’s opinion, upholding the magistrate’s order but adding nothing of substance on the use of predictive coding. It is not a pointer to a law journal that requires “free” registration.
I think readers have a reasonable expectation that articles contain pointers to primary source materials. Otherwise, why not write for the tabloids?
Sorry, I just get enraged when resources do not point to primary sources. Not only is it poor writing, it is discourteous to readers.
Magistrate Peck’s opinion is said to be the first that approves the use of predictive coding as part of e-discovery.
In very summary form, the plaintiff (the person suing) has requested the defendant (the person being sued), produce documents, including emails, in its possession that are responsive to a discovery request. A discovery request is where the plaintiff specifies what documents it wants the defendant to produce, usually described as a member of a class of documents. For example, all documents with statements about [plaintiff’s name] employment with X, prior to N date.
In this case, there are 3 million emails to be searched and then reviewed by the defense lawyers (for claims of privilege, non-disclosure authorized by law, such as advice of counsel in some cases) prior to production for review by the plaintiff, who may then use one or more of the emails at trial.
The question is: Should the defense lawyers use a few thousand documents to train a computer to search the 3 million documents or should they use other methods, which will result in much higher costs because lawyers have to review more documents?
The law, facts and e-discovery issues weave in and out of Magistrate Peck’s decision but if you ignore the obviously legalese parts you will get the gist of what is being said. (If you have e-discovery issues, please seek professional assistance.)
I think topic maps could be very relevant in this situation because subjects permeate the discovery process, under different names and perspectives, to say nothing of sharing analysis and data with co-counsel.
I am also mindful that analysis of presentations, speeches, written documents, emails, discovery from other cases, could well develop profiles of potential witnesses in business litigation in particular. A topic map could be quite useful in mapping the terminology most likely to be used by a particular defendant.
BTW, it will be a long time coming, in part because it would reduce the fees of the defense bar, but I would say, “OK, here are the 3 million emails. We reserve the right to move to exclude any on the basis of privilege, relevancy, etc.”
That ends all the dancing around about discovery and if the plaintiff wants to slough through 3 million emails, fine. They still have to disclose what they intend to produce as exhibits at trial.