ARCHIVED CONTENT
You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online between 1 April 2010 and 24 August 2018 or content that has been selectively archived and is no longer active. Content in this archive is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function.Extract from article by John Hopkins
If a Daubert standard should be or will apply to evidence in a case, shouldn’t it apply to speculative or new technology used in what is possibly the most important aspect of litigation – the discovery process?
Since the Judge Peck’s ruling in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, et al., No. 11-cv-1279 (S.D.N.Y.), predictive coding and technology assisted review (TAR) have become e-discovery vendors’ catharsis. Between national seminars touting the fantastic virtues of predictive coding to judicial endorsements and orders virtually requiring the use of predictive coding, we have seen a relatively new science flower into a forerunner in claiming to save costs and carve discovery down to a manageable size.
So do I believe predictive coding (only one tool within TAR) is bad, flawed or not in the best alternative? Not necessarily.
Read the complete article at Testing for Junk Science in the Discovery Process