Now that U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. has affirmed the groundbreaking predictive coding order issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, Law Technology News reporter Evan Koblentz went back and spoke to leading professionals in the legal technology field for their reactions. You can read his story here: Take Two: Reactions to ‘Da Silva Moore’ Predictive Coding Order.
One of the people Koblentz quotes is Catalyst’s own Jim Eidelman, senior search and analytics consultant on the Catalyst Search & Analytics Consulting team. These court decisions gave predictive coding “a legitimacy that was needed,” Eidelman told Koblentz. But before predictive coding can fully enter the mainstream, engineers need to work out some of the technology’s limitations, he said.
“Obviously it is all about the process, the sampling, and the use of common sense,” Eidelman said. “Some documents can only be found other ways, and predictive coding isn’t a universal solution. Clearly multi-mode searching and review is required in every case, with or without da Silva.”
Eidelman goes on to discuss what he says is “one of the big defensibility issues nobody is talking about.” That issue is pre-culling using keyword searching — something that can leave relevant documents behind and taint the process.
“Other big issues are sampling methodologies, how multiple issues are handled, and attorney-client privilege,” Eidelman says in the article. “There is still so much to be worked out. We are just at the infancy of the machine learning applied to e-discovery documents, even though ‘relevance feedback’ has been used in other areas for decades.”
Read the full article with reactions from a number of technology professionals at Law Technology News.