I am not going to try and compete with the Clearwell / Symantec writing team as it comments on developments in the Da Silva Moore v Publicis Groupe case, the first one in which the use of predictive coding, the most exciting eDiscovery technology development of our time (I speak generically here, not of any one product) is debated in front of one of the few judges who understands it and the contribution it can make to cost-effective eDiscovery.
Yesterday brought us Matthew Nelson’s article Judge Peck Issues Order Addressing “Joint Predictive Coding Protocol” in Da Silva Moore eDiscovery case. Phil Favro takes up the baton today with Plaintiffs Object to Predictive Coding Order, Argue Lack of Transparency in the eDiscovery Process. Both articles give clear recitals of the state of play, hyperlinked to appropriate sources, and I have a big enough list of articles to write without treading over the same ground.
I am, anyway, too busy banging my head against the desk after reading the Declaration of the plaintiff’s expert witness in support of their objection. How have we come to this? I give no view on the propriety of the Objection or on the content of the Declaration. I am just wondering what it has all got to do with the “just, speedy and inexpensive” requirement of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with proportionality, with the obligation of cooperation imposed by the rules and expressly required by the judge, and with the evidence on which this case will turn.
Sod all, I’d say.
