An influential federal district judge whose opinions on e-discovery are well respected may have set e-discovery on a path toward its most searching scrutiny yet.
In Disability Rights Council v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 242 F.R.D. 139 (D.D.C. 2007), Judge John M. Facciola recommended “concept searching,” – the use of complex search engines that make use of linguistic or statistical patterning to locate responsive emails and e-docs, in order for a tardy producer of discovery to wade through voluminous electronically stored information quickly. Interestingly, Facciola made no mention of whether the use of concept searching tools should be subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admission of scientific or expert testimony.
This content has been archived.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]
