What were the top e-discovery developments of the past year? Legally? Technologically? Here’s what a sampling of leading litigators had to say.

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe in the Southern District of New York is interesting from both a legal and technological standpoint. For the first time, a court approved the use of predictive -coding technology for discovery. The order, which was appealed and affirmed, set the stage for the use of predictive coding to reduce litigation costs and speed the discovery process. ” — Steve Silverman, Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine

“The monumental legal/technology development in 2012 was the broad acceptance of predictive coding.…Judges and litigants are now being routinely asked to consider using computer-assisted review in the production phase of discovery. This is a ground breaking development that augurs well for those who have long advocated for the efficiencies that come with computer -assisted review of large data sets.” — Jonathan Sablone, Nixon Peabody

“Technology-based advances are helping bring costs down, but the most significant piece of e-discovery remains the cost of attorney review time. Rather than focusing on the cost of the data processing, counsel and clients should be focused on embracing tools and tactics that lower attorney review time yet maintain a thoroughly defensible process.” — John Curran, Stroz Friedberg

“Instead of hiring an army of contract attorneys or junior associates to spend months on end reviewing documents, a more senior attorney can spend a couple of days doing it, with a computer software program ‘learning’ how to properly code the documents moving forward. This means that instead of taking six months or more to compile e-discovery requests, you can get it done in a month or two.…Yet another example whereby in the machine vs. man debate, machine is emerging as the clear winner.” — Scott Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg

“The emergence of technology-assisted review…should not be overstated. The handful of cases that show a willingness of courts to consider alternatives to traditional review do not bless the outcome of any technology-assisted review process. On the legal side, 2012 saw an even greater amount of judicial focus on proportionality in electronic discovery.…There is now a greater appreciation for the need to find documents that are relevant to the resolution of disputed matters rather than documents that are merely related in some way to the dispute.” — Gilbert Keteltas, Baker & Hostetler

“The amount of data an organization is generating and managing is growing exponentially. According to IDC, a technology industry analyst firm, enterprises will produce 10.5 zettabytes of data and manage an additional 28 zettabytes of data by 2020. A resulting trend is to outsource the storage and maintenance.” — Stephanie Giammarco, BDO Consulting

“Courts are coming around to the concept that cooperation should be more than a buzz word, but actually put into practice in discovery negotiations. In the Northern District of California, for example, the latest Model Stipulated Order re Discovery of ESI contains the following language: ‘The parties are aware of the importance the Court places on cooperation and commit to cooperate in good faith throughout the matter consistent with this Court’s Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI.’ The more courts embrace this approach, the more attorneys will have to adopt it.” — Megan Jones, Hausfeld

“International discovery became more commonplace, creating more conflicts between foreign data protection laws and U.S. discovery obligations. But organizations like the Sedona Conference have been developing protocols for navigating those conflicts, which have been gaining acceptance from foreign data protection authorities.” — Gareth Evans, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

“One of the most important legal e-discovery developments in 2012 was the creation of case law that provides additional guidance on what an organization must do to avoid spoliation of electronic data…[O]rganizations must issue timely and far-reaching hold notices. In addition, the language used in the hold notice should be clear and concise so that it can be easily understood by everyone who receives the notice.” — Andrew Cary, Gordon & Rees