Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Tech: e-Discovery: Judge Says 'NO' to Party's Bid to Force Use of Predictive Coding
Predictive coding, the use of computer algorithms and machine learning as part of document review, has been billed as the next generation of technology in e-discovery. For years, e-discovery service providers — along with some jurists and e-discovery industry veterans — have sung its praises as, at minimum, a complement to the standard document review process, and possibly as a replacement for it.
In reality, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for managing e-discovery. In many situations, the use of advanced technology, perhaps even predictive coding, may enhance the speed, efficiency, and quality of review of electronically stored information (ESI). In many others, it will not. Questions loom as to when and how best to leverage advanced technology and, with respect to predictive coding, its cost, effectiveness, and level of acceptance by parties and judges.
Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck of the Southern District of New York, well-known as someone who not only accepts predictive coding, but also actively promotes its use, has become synonymous with the topic of predictive coding. His advocacy through articles, panel appearances, and decisions such as Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) and Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), has helped to convert many in the e-discovery industry from skeptics to believers with respect to the use of predictive coding. A true believer himself, Judge Peck has often urged parties to use predictive coding, which he calls “technology-assisted review” or TAR, whenever appropriate.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?