eDiscovery Daily Blog

• August 29, 2013

Whether you were “afraid to ask” or not…

Rob Robinson has put together another terrific compilation, this time a compilation of articles about Technology Assisted Review and Predictive Coding over the past 1 1/2 years (from February 2012, last updated on August 12).  If you simply can’t get enough of the topic, you’ll want to check it out.

His compilation can be found at his Complex Discovery web site here (the title of the page is Technology-Assisted Review: From Expert Explanations to Mainstream Mentions).  According to my count, there are 632(!) articles regarding the topic.  Happy reading!

Of course, eDiscovery Daily made its fair share of contributions to the list.  Here are our posts regarding the topic on the site, in case you missed them and want to catch up:

• Not So Fast on Computer Assisted Review
• The Other Technology Assisted Review Case
• Is the Third Time the Charm for Technology Assisted Review?
• eDiscovery Case Law: Defendant Responds to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal in Da Silva Moore
• eDiscovery Case Law: Judge Peck Stays Defendant’s Production in Da Silva Moore
• Where Does the Money Go? RAND Provides Some Answers
• eDiscovery Trends: TREC Study Finds Technology Assisted Review More Cost Effective
• Judge Scheindlin Says “No” to Self-Collection, “Yes” to Predictive Coding
• eDiscovery Trends: Use of Internet-Based Tools, Predictive Coding, Up in 2012, Says ABA
• eDiscovery Best Practices: For Successful Predictive Coding, Start Randomly
• eDiscovery Case Law: No Kleen Sweep for Technology Assisted Review
• Both Sides Instructed to Use Predictive Coding or Show Cause Why Not
• Louisiana Order Dictates That the Parties Cooperate on Technology Assisted Review
• Baby, You Can Drive My CARRM – eDiscovery Trends
• First Case for Technology Assisted Review to be Completed
• Must Losing Plaintiff Pay Defendant $2.8M for Predictive Coding of One Million Docs? Court Says Yes
• Five Common Myths About Predictive Coding – eDiscovery Best Practices
• Appeals Court Upholds Decision Not to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore – eDiscovery Case Law
• Never Mind! Plaintiffs Not Required to Use Predictive Coding After All
• Is it OK for an eDiscovery Vendor to Work on Both Sides of a Case? – eDiscovery Best Practices

Here are a few others that aren’t listed – just sayin’ Rob!  😉:

• eDiscovery Trends: “Assisted” is the Key Word for Technology Assisted Review
• eDiscovery Case Law: Predictive Coding Considered by Judge in New York Case
• eDiscovery Case Law: Computer Assisted Review Approved by Judge Peck in New York Case
• eDiscovery Case Law: Da Silva Moore Plaintiffs Question Predictive Coding Proposal, Judge Peck’s Activities
• eDiscovery Case Law: Judge Peck Responds to Plaintiff’s Request for Recusal
• eDiscovery Case Law: Friday the 13th Is Unlucky for Judge Peck
• eDiscovery BREAKING Case Law: Judge Carter Upholds Judge Peck’s Predictive Coding Order
• eDiscovery Case Law: Judge Peck Denies Recusal Motion in Da Silva Moore
• Judge Carter Refuses to Recuse Judge Peck in Da Silva Moore – eDiscovery Trends
• The Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology Assisted Review – eDiscovery Resources
• Is 31,000 Missed Relevant Documents an Acceptable Outcome? – eDiscovery Case Law
• Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Use of Keyword Search before Predictive Coding Rejected – eDiscovery Case Law
• Motion to Compel Dismissed after Defendant Agrees to Conditional Meet and Confer – eDiscovery Case Law

Thanks to Rob, once again, for providing a very useful compilation on a very important eDiscovery topic.  And, Rob, if you want to add links for the additional posts above, we won’t complain.  🙂

So, what do you think?  Do you keep up with articles about technology assisted review?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.