Most of us love the idea of big data analytics and how it can ultimately benefit us, not just in the litigation process, but in business and life overall. But, there may be one group of people who may not be as big a fan of big data analytics as the rest of us: criminals who are being sentenced at least partly on the basis of predictive data analysis regarding the likelihood that they will be a repeat offender.
In Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, in one of his last orders before leaving the bench, determined that there was “no question that spoliation has occurred” and granted the defendant’s motion for sanctions for spoliation, “in its entirety, except for the proposed remedy”, opting for a middle ground between the parties’ proposals on what the remedy should be.
With the acceptance of predictive coding and other technology assisted review mechanisms growing over the past few years, some feel that keyword search is no longer important as a “key” (pun intended) component of the eDiscovery process. In a new article published last week, I discussed why search is so important in eDiscovery and why law firms and e-discovery companies need better search solutions.
In Family Wireless #1, LLC et. al. v. Automotive Technologies, Inc., Connecticut Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam partially granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to search and produce ESI from additional custodians, finding that “three of the six proposed custodians' files are likely to include information relevant to this matter, and defendant has not met its burden of showing that inclusion of these three individuals would be unduly burdensome”.
In Al-Ameri et. al. v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Maryland Magistrate Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher denied the defendant’s motion to compel on the basis that compelling the discovery sought would be futile.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog