In Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 14 Civ. 3042 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2015), U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck of the Southern District of New York, one of brightest and most informed jurists writing about e-discovery, summarized how, in the past three years, “the case law has developed to the point that it is now black-letter law” that courts will permit producing parties in e-discovery matters to use technology-assisted review and, in particular, predictive coding to review documents for production.
Peck’s opinion is correct, brilliant and spot-on. However, what is as interesting as the opinion itself is what it does not touch on: The “black-letter law” developed over the past three years has developed in a relatively secluded corner of the litigation world. The delta between those litigators who have embraced and immersed themselves in e-discovery and those who continue to ignore it long after it has outgrown its Next Big Thing status, and the ramifications of that growing delta, are remarkable, and worthy of discussion.
The Tar Protocol
This content has been archived.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]
