From time to time a judge takes a keen interest in a developing area of the law and becomes a leading expert on the subject. Southern District Magistrate Judge Andrew eck has become such an authority on “predictive coding”an emerging method of computer-assisted electronic document review about which he has written and spoken both inside and outside the courtroom. In February of this year, Peck issued the first judicial decision endorsing the use of predictive coding in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe.1
One month after he issued that decision, the plaintiffs, who objected to Peck’s predictive coding order, sought his recusal, citing among other grounds his “advocacy” of predictive coding as evidence of bias requiring him to step aside. Against the general backdrop of the law governing judicial recusal, Peck’s recent decision denying that motion contains an interesting discussion of why a judge’s strongly held and publicly expressed views on an aspect of litigation cannot and should not provide grounds for disqualification.2
Peck’s Article
This content has been archived.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]
