eDiscovery Daily Blog
Never Mind! Plaintiffs Not Required to Use Predictive Coding After All – eDiscovery Case Law
Remember EORHB v. HOA Holdings, where, in a surprise ruling, both parties were instructed to use predictive coding by the judge? Well, the judge has changed his mind.
As reported by Robert Hilson in the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists® (ACEDS) web site (subscription required), Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster has revised his decision in EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings, LLC, No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. May 6, 2013). The new order enables the defendants to continue to utilize computer assisted review with their chosen vendor but no longer requires both parties to use the same vendor and enables the plaintiffs, “based on the low volume of relevant documents expected to be produced” to perform document review “using traditional methods.”
Here is the text of this very short order:
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2012, the Court entered an Order providing that, “[a]bsent a modification of this order for good cause shown, the parties shall (i) retain a single discovery vendor to be used by both sides, and (ii) conduct document review with the assistance of predictive coding;”
WHEREAS, the parties have proposed that HOA Holdings LLC and HOA Restaurant Group LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) retain ediscovery vendor Kroll OnTrack for electronic discovery;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that, based on the low volume of relevant documents expected to be produced in discovery by EORHB, Inc., Coby G. Brooks, Edward J. Greene, James P. Creel, Carter B. Wrenn and Glenn G. Brooks (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), the cost of using predictive coding assistance would likely be outweighed by any practical benefit of its use;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that there is no need for the parties to use the same discovery review platform;
WHEREAS, the requested modification of the Order will not prejudice any of the parties;
NOW THEREFORE, this –––– day of May 2013, for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(i) Defendants may retain ediscovery vendor Kroll OnTrack and employ Kroll OnTrack and its computer assisted review tools to conduct document review;
(ii) Plaintiffs and Defendants shall not be required to retain a single discovery vendor to be used by both sides; and
(iii) Plaintiffs may conduct document review using traditional methods.
Here is a link to the order from the article by Hilson.
So, what do you think? Should a party ever be ordered to use predictive coding? 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.
CloudNine empowers legal, information technology, and business professionals with eDiscovery automation software and professional services that simplify litigation, investigations, and audits for law firms and corporations.