From the class action lawsuit suit alleging gender discrimination, emerges a groundbreaking rise in litigation. A U.S. Justice of the peace Judge issued a choice that approved using "predictive coding" technology included in the e-discovery process in litigation.
The pioneering situation involved a issue for gender discrimination in employment that is prohibited by condition and federal law.
Predictive coding is computer-aided search and coding utilizing a complex algorithms to allow a pc to judge the relevance of a big assortment of documents with different reviewer's coding of the small sample of documents. Quite simply, a pc might be developed to tag large teams of digitally documents as responsive, non-responsive or fortunate from the small sample of documents already explained an active attorney throughout the legal discovery process.
The problem laptop or computer-aided e-discovery came prior to the U.S. justice of the peace judge within the aforementioned situation. Even though the parties decided to use computer-aided technology, they could not agree concerning the exact methodology and application. The justice of the peace judge resolved the disagreement when you purchase using predictive coding to recognize relevant documents from an accumulation of over 3 million emails from documents within the discovery process.
While there's been lots of discussion of utilizing computer-aided technology for document review, the justice of the peace judge's decision is essential since it is the very first court-purchased sanction of predictive coding.
The value of the choice does not necessarily mean that predictive coding is going to be purchased or implemented in each and every situation. The key factors which encouraged the justice of the peace judge to buy using predictive coding are:
1. The parties were already in complete agreement on making use of computer-aided electronic discovery
2. The large quantity of documents requiring legal review
3. The price effectiveness
4. The obvious benefit of using predictive coding within the situation.
5. The transparency from the discovery process as suggested through the defendants
An essential reason for the choice would be that the computer-aided e-discovery process doesn't have to become perfect to become recognized in the court.