Read the order: Gordon v. Kaleida Health
When using predictive coding parties are expected to share information to make to make search methods effective. However, the court will not preemptively force a party to go beyond the scope of the rules nor will it preemptively remind parties of their discovery obligations.
Well, it’s official – another major release for AccessData’s flagship review tool, Summation. From the looks of it, they’ve really improved this product with some great new features.
Obviously some form of technology-assisted review (TAR) is an essential feature for any modern review tool, and Summation includes predictive coding among their TAR offerings with this version 5.0 release. There are some relationship analysis tools as well, which are helpful when you have a large number of custodians and need to determine the relationships they have with one another.
Another feature users will notice right away are the email threading improvements – these features are great when you’re trying to review and code an email thread and are tired of reading and coding the same text over and over. There are also some neat data visualization tools which can help you get a realistic grasp of how much data you’re looking at, and how your review project is coming along so far.
But not all the new improvements are focused on the end-user experience – there are a few back-end features that will make our lives easier over here as well. The first is the integration with FTK. For you eDiscovery people out there, FTK is a forensic analysis tool (similar to EnCase), and this integration means we will be able to streamline data right out of the forensics workflow and into Summation.
Summation will also have the ability to load Concordance and Relativity load files, so moving away from other platforms is painless.
If you couldn’t tell by now, yes, we obviously have a partnership with AccessData. So if you’re looking to try out the new version of Summation, let us know and we’ll help you with that. And if you like the idea of using the new version of Summation, but your IT and litigation support departments are stretched a bit thin, we can help with that too! Now that I think of it, even if you don’t want anything to do with Summation, you should contact us anyway – we can help with a wide variety of eDiscovery, digital forensics, and threat management offerings. Just fill out the contact form on the right and we’ll get back to you.
Read the opinion here: Pillay vs. Millard
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Case No. 09 C 5725
Judge Joan H. Lefkow
To alleviate the prejudice, the court will give Seventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 1.20, approximately as follows:
Pillay contends that Millard at one time possessed data documenting Ramirez’s productivity and performance that was destroyed by Millard. Millard contends that the loss of the data was accidental. You may assume that such evidence would have been unfavorable to Millard only if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Millard intentionally or recklessly caused the evidence to be destroyed; and (2) Millard caused the evidence to be destroyed in bad faith.The court will also instruct the jury that reckless conduct rises above a mistake or carelessness and evinces a conscious disregard of a duty. One may infer that conduct was in bad faith if it was intentionally or recklessly done.
Judge reverses his order that parties need to share an ediscovery vendor and use Predictive Coding.
After summary judgment, prevailing party E. & J. Gallo submits bill of costs for ediscovery processing. Circuits are split as to eligibility of ESI costs unter 1920(d). In this case the fourth circuit found Race Tires America (Third Circuit) persuasive and held that ESI processing is not “making copies” – only making copies can be reimbursed.
Judge orders the parties to do two things: 1. Use predictive coding and 2. use a common ediscovery vendor.
EORHB, Inc., et al v. HOA Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012)
Defendants identified the predictive coding set by using keywords against the collection – the keyword-hot documents were subjected to predictive coding (TAR). Plaintiffs object because they think the keywords tainted the process. However, the judge holds that sampling demonstrates the keyword process was sufficient; that whatever documents are left behind are not worth the cost of going back to get them.
“What Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2).”
“if the Steering Committee wishes production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production, the Steering Committee will have to bear the expense. ”
