Oct 8


Losing my server and with it the original DocReviewMD blog posts has given me the opportunity to repost and revisit the posts I have been able to locate and re-issue them.  This was not my favorite post because it was a response to the mud slinging which occurred in da Silva Moore.  My original draft posting never saw the light of day.  To put it mildly, I was incensed at the personal attacks made in this case which time has shown were highly ineffective.  There is no vendor conspiracy in this field.  Judges who offer their time to educate are doing just that, educating.  Education remains the biggest challenge in the advancement of document review and that is why we launched the Predictive Coding Thought Leadership Series which has the involvement of many judges who are all freely donating their time to help educate lawyers on their reaction to new technology like predictive coding.  Enjoy….

Originally posted on May 20, 2012

I originally posted a blog yesterday highlighting Sharon Nelson for writing a insightful blog post on Da Silva Moore and the Role of ACEDS  which was then updated in a follow up blog post exposing the potential profit based motives behind ACEDS’s attacks on Judge Peck in the Da Silva Moore predictive coding case.  I know Sharon and she is extremely conscientious and ethical.  She is also not someone who is trying to grab a headline.  She earned her place in the E-Discovery world a long time ago.  I had added some of my thoughts on this topic yesterday but after spending an afternoon doing yard work and reflecting on this issue, I decided to let the pieces fall where they fall and remove the post.  This is a silly fight and detracts from the real issues in predictive coding.

I really hope the mudslinging stops in this case and future cases focus on the important issues of validation and cooperation between parties to push this field forward.  More training for lawyers, judges and corporations is needed.  The real issues are in front of us.  The issues raised in this cited blog post while important, are frankly red herrings in the world of predictive coding.  They are easier to grasp than when and how to use statistics to show that a search for relevant ESI has been effective.  How litigants can become comfortable with imperfect tools they might view as black boxes.  What role the null sets play in validation and cooperation?  Do protocols that have emerged work with different predictive coding tools?  How to move litigants off of key words which studies show have never worked well to find what they don’t find, words which are similar but not exact matches.

I don’t want LawBlogReview to be a gossip blog even though I know lots of people read and enjoy gossip.  It should be about technical issues.  That is where I hope the vast majority of my future posts are focused in future blogs.  That is where I hope we keep the dialogue and focus on going forward.

That is all I have to say on this.

- Karl Schieneman  DocReview, MD

leave a reply

Recent Posts

Recent Comments