August 11th, 2016
In this employment discrimination case against the City of New York, the parties asked the court to resolve a number of discovery disputes, including a disagreement about the methodology that should be used to find responsive documents. The City preferred to use keyword searches, and the parties had engaged in some preliminary discussions about the appropriate keywords. Read about Judge Peck's order on technology assisted review.
July 11th, 2016
Back in March we reported on Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd., the first order by a British court approving the use of the use of technology assisted review (TAR) for litigation disclosures. In that case, Master Matthews drew heavily from Magistrate Judge Peck’s landmark decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, and crafted a list of ten factors weighing in favor of the use of TAR. The court found no factors suggesting TAR should not be used. Now, another UK court has approved the use of TAR, but this time in a different posture.
March 1st, 2016
A British court has now joined courts in the United States—and one in Ireland—by approving the use of technology assisted review (TAR) in litigation. On February 16, 2016, in the matter Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd., Master Matthews of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division granted the parties’ request to use predictive coding technology to identify documents for electronic disclosures (the U.K. analog to U.S. e-discovery). According to Master Matthews, it was the first such decision in the U.K.
July 21st, 2015
Last week at LegalTech West, as part of DiscoverReady’s Corporate Counsel CLE track, I facilitated a panel discussion on “Managing Data Security and Privacy in Discovery.” And I had the very good fortune of moderating a panel comprised of three experienced, smart, engaging in-house data security and privacy experts—along with one equally impressive law firm attorney with a national reputation for his expertise in this area. The presentation was so well received that I thought I’d share some highlights here on our eDiscovery blog.
April 18th, 2015
Last month in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., Magistrate Judge Peck issued another order regarding the use of predictive coding (a.k.a technology assisted review, or TAR). Judge Peck’s titling of the order was “Da Silva Moore Revisited”, to signal the importance of the Rio Tinto case in eDiscovery practice.