The Human Side To Using Predictive Coding In E-Discovery

The Human Side To Using Predictive Coding In E-Discovery

Image source: https://static.ftitechnology.com/ringtail/graphics/documentation/ringtail-9.1/project-source-files/case-admin/analysis/predictive-coding/cal-workflow.jpg

The case involves almost a dozen lawsuits from plaintiffs who argued that they suffered appreciable property damage from a collapsed roof on the Dulles Jet Center during a 2010 snowstorm.

The location is circuit courtroom in Loudoun County, Virginia.

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis is the law firm defending Dulles Jet Center opposed to the 10 plaintiffs. Thomas Gricks III is the leading attorney for the firm.

Early on in the case, Gricks saw that the discovery process worried over 2 million documents to be reviewed. To save money, he filed a motion to use predictive coding to investigate and tag the responsiveness of the documents.

In a landmark decision, the circuit courtroom in Loudoun County, Virginia, granted Gricks motion and ordered the use of predictive coding.

What is Predictive Coding?

Predictive Coding is novel formulation of e-discovery whereby a computer learns how to investigate and tag documents based on a sample reviewed by a lawyer.

Gricks Argument for Predictive Coding

During a typical discovery process in a litigation, you have tremendous percentage of non-responsive documents. Gricks argues that predictive way is to characterize your complete set of electronic documents by reviewing a smaller portion.

In the case involving his client, Dulles Jet Center, Gricks claimed that through predictive coding, he could review a fraction of the documents — 5,0000 instead of 2 million. Rand Corp, a nonprofit evaluation institute, released a study that shows that 73% of e-discovery costs are from document review.

In assist of his motion, Gricks argued that countless numbers of dollars is perhaps saved by employing the new technology. As a result, more parties to litigation will be able to afford electronic discovery.

The monetary savings to either side of the case could save countless numbers of dollars. Gricks remarked, "The key to this is that it makes electronic discovery more affordable."

Jones Day, plaintiffs representative, objected to the effectiveness and accuracy of predictive coding. Gricks filed his motion to protect the use of the specialized technology and offered expert testimony to verify its accuracy. Before any expert testified, the decide granted Gricks motion.

Karl Schieneman was one of the experts who was prepared to testify. He is a Pittsburgh lawyer and owner of Review Less, a legal consulting firm. Schieneman claims that over a small variety of documents you can teach software to identify what the to attorney is tagging. The alternative is hiring dozens of lawyers, renting an place of business and computers and having them spend hours doing document review the basic way.

The significance of the ruling won by Gricks is that a courtroom has opened the door to using predictive coding.

Schieneman summarized by saying that the legal issue in the case is whether it is acceptable to pursue technology that will find outcome faster and more precisely while saving a client's money. He concluded that the Loudoun County District Court determined that it is logical to try such technology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *