The speakers on LegalTech West Coast’s predictive coding panel, “Under Fire: Defending and Challenging Technology-Assisted Review,” often seemed more intent on challenging judicial and legal industry assumptions about the review technology than on defending it.
In a spirited and entertaining discussion, the speakers put to test predictive coding in electronic data discovery — the process of taking a subset of a data collection, and having senior litigators mark certain documents as responsive or non-responsive and then the software “learns” from these decisions. They raised concerns not about the technology’s viability, but about how the current controversies will affect its use in litigation. Key issues that arose included: 1) how industry and other promotional representations of the technology could negatively impact its widespread adoption, 2) potential fallout from the “computer-assisted coding” order from Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Monique da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe and MLS Group, and 3) musings on just who should be creating the seed sets used to “predict” which documents will be responsive.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
