Over the past few years, much ink has been spilled by judges, commentators,1 and e-discovery service providers opining on the merits and drawbacks of predictive coding.2 Topics have included when predictive coding should and should not be used, which of the many competing predictive coding technologies and processes are best, whether predictive coding is more accurate than human review, and exactly how, if at all, predictive coding should be incorporated into discovery protocols.
In one of the best known court battles over predictive coding, Moore v. Publicis Groupe, the court concluded that a judge could incorporate predictive coding into electronically stored information (ESI) protocols over the objection of one of the parties.3 But what happens when the parties have already agreed to an ESI protocol, which does not include predictive coding, and one party wants to change this protocol, over the objection of the other party, by incorporating predictive coding? Can one party unilaterally alter the method of discovery, or does the agreed upon ESI protocol take precedence?
This content has been archived.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]
