Courts Endorse New Data-Sorting Formulas For E-Discovery

Law360, New York (July 03, 2013, 1:40 PM ET) -- In the first half of 2013, federal courts gave law firms and their clients some much-needed guidance on e-discovery, issuing several rulings that clarify how they should use an emerging method for sorting through reams of data and rebuking those that offer lazy replies to discovery requests.

With the advent of technology that allows companies to store more data than ever before, attorneys and others involved in complex litigation are increasingly turning to emerging document review methods such as predictive coding, or computer-assisted review, which sorts...
To view the full article, register now.

Related

Sections

Case Information

Case Title

Gabriel Technologies et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al


Case Number

3:08-cv-01992

Court

California Southern

Nature of Suit

Contract: Other

Judge

Anthony J. Battaglia

Date Filed

October 24, 2008


Case Title

Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al


Case Number

2:11-cv-00691

Court

New York Southern

Nature of Suit

Racketeer/Corrupt Organization

Judge

Lewis A. Kaplan

Date Filed

February 1, 2011


Case Title

Branhaven, LLC v. Beeftek, Inc. et al


Case Number

1:11-cv-02334

Court

Maryland

Nature of Suit

Contract: Other

Judge

William D Quarles, Jr

Date Filed

August 22, 2011


Case Title

Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation


Case Number

3:12-md-02391

Court

Indiana Northern

Nature of Suit

Personal Inj. Prod. Liability

Judge

Robert L Miller, Jr

Date Filed

October 4, 2012

Law Firms

Companies