In the last few months, two different federal courts considered similar discovery scenarios, but reached opposite conclusions about how discovery should proceed. The parties agreed to a discovery plan that did not include the use of predictive coding. But after wading into discovery, the producing party realized that, in light of the volume of documents to be reviewed and the burden of conducting review with traditional methods, predicting coding could be worthwhile.
In two prior blog posts, Maureen examined a number of proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure developed by the Duke Conference Subcommittee and the Discovery Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. Now, those amendments appear to be changing — thanks to more than 2,000 written comments submitted. In response to this substantial input, both subcommittees have recommended major changes to the proposed amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Putting Statistics to Work in eDiscovery: Use Cases for Incorporating Statistical Sampling and Analysis
In two prior posts, I first made the case that all litigators need to understand some basic statistics, and then provided a primer on the key statistical concepts in ediscovery they should know. In this final post in the statistical sampling series, I suggest some of the best opportunities for incorporating statistical sampling and statistical analysis into discovery efforts.
It’s December 23, and you haven’t finished your Christmas shopping. You know what that means. Your stress level is about to go way up, as you fight the crowds in the stores and on the streets. Don’t worry, I’m not judging you for your holiday shopping habits. . . But please, litigants, don’t treat document review you like you do your Christmas shopping.