Papageorge: Predictive coding gaining support in courts

January 29, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

By John Papageorge

For attorneys handling larger litigation matters, electronically stored information – or ESI – has changed the landscape on how discovery is conducted. The days of manually reviewing boxes of client documents in cold warehouses have taken a backseat to wading through thousands – and in some cases millions – of emails and other electronic records.

Attorneys now are faced with the monumental task of collecting, reviewing and producing their own client’s electronic documents while also reviewing the opposing side’s electronic documents. This can lead to uncomfortable conversations with clients regarding the significant cost of the process.

Papageorge Papageorge

Supporters of predictive coding argue it makes the electronic discovery process less costly and less complicated. Predictive coding – a type of technology-assisted review or computer-assisted review – uses computers and algorithms to identify relevant and responsive documents in an automated manner. Unlike manual review, where the review is done by the most junior staff, predictive coding involves a more senior attorney or small team who review a “seed set” of documents for responsiveness.

The predictive coding system then applies the algorithms to identify properties of the seed set to automatically code the documents not reviewed by the attorneys. As the attorney team continues to code or identify additional responsive documents, the computer predicts the responsiveness of the universe of documents. Attorneys must review sample sets of documents coded by the computer and ultimately decide they have satisfied the requirements of Rule 26. In the end, the computer can identify thousands or even millions of responsive documents without the need for manual attorney review, saving clients thousands of dollars.

Predictive coding is gaining support in federal courts. In February 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a leading authority on predictive coding, approved the use of predictive coding in Moore v. Publicis Groupe based on the following reasons: (1) the parties’ agreement, (2) the vast amount of electronically stored information (over three million documents), (3) the superiority of computer-assisted review to the available alternatives (i.e., linear manual review or keyword searches), (4) the need for cost effectiveness and proportionality under Rule 26, and (5) the transparent process proposed by one of the parties.

While Judge Peck cautioned that computer-assisted review is not appropriate in all cases, he did urge the bar to seriously consider using predictive coding in large-data-volume cases where it may save litigants a significant amount of legal fees for document review.

In April 2013, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. of the Northern District of Indiana issued a ruling in In re Biomet related to a discovery dispute involving keyword searches and predictive coding. Biomet produced millions of documents by initially using keyword searches to narrow the field of documents, followed by predictive coding to identify relevant documents to be produced. Biomet spent millions of dollars on electronic discovery. Plaintiffs objected to Biomet’s search method and argued that predictive coding should have been used from the outset. Plaintiffs wanted Biomet to start the discovery process over.

While Judge Miller stated that predictive coding from the outset might have unearthed additional documents, he ultimately rejected plaintiffs’ request to start over because Biomet, through the use of keyword searches and predictive coding, had satisfied the requirements of Rule 26 and the cost to start over outweighed any benefits of starting over. Judge Miller did tell plaintiffs that if they wanted documents produced via predictive coding only, they could pay the additional costs.

In May 2013, in Gordon v. Kaleida Health, an employment matter pending in the Western District of New York, the parties asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute involving approximately a quarter of a million electronic documents. For more than a year, the parties attempted, without success, to agree on how to achieve a cost-effective review of defendants’ voluminous emails using keyword search methodology. The court was dissatisfied with the lack of progress using keyword searches, and it pointed to predictive coding as another option.

After defendants decided to use predictive coding, the parties then fought over plaintiffs’ use of a conflicted consultant. Plaintiffs also took the position that the parties must negotiate a transparent protocol to guide the use of predictive coding software. Defendants, on the other hand, asserted that courts do not order parties in ESI discovery disputes to agree to specific protocols to facilitate computer-assisted review, based on the general rule that ESI production is within the sound discretion of the producing party. Because defendants ultimately agreed to meet and discuss the production using predictive coding, the court did not rule on the protocol dispute.

As caselaw develops on predictive coding, the issue of transparency related to predictive coding will be one to watch.

For larger litigation matters, predictive coding is here to stay, although the process is ever-changing. Many issues need to be resolved related to predictive coding, but cooperation and transparency will certainly take center stage. And as costs continue to escalate, courts will be faced with ongoing disputes over who pays for what.

Even after these disputes are resolved, parties must find the key documents that can be used to win the case. Maybe searching boxes of documents in a cold warehouse was not so bad after all.•


John Papageorge – – is a partner with Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, practicing complex civil litigation with significant experience handling issues related to electronic discovery. He serves as the firm’s e-discovery practice contact. The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I commend Joe for standing up to this tyrant attorney! You ask why? Well I’m one of David Steele victims. I was in desperate need of legal help to protect my child, David saw an opportunity, and he demanded I pay him $3000. Cash. As I received motions and orders from court he did nothing! After weeks of emails asking him to address the legal issues, he responded by saying he was “on vacation “and I should be so lucky to have “my attorney” reply. Finally after lie on top of lie I asked for a full refund, which he refused. He then sent me “bills” for things he never did, such as, his appearance in the case and later claimed he withdrew. He never filed one document / motion for my case! When I finally demanded he refund my money he then turn to threats which scared my family for our lives. It seem unreal we couldn’t believe this guy. I am now over $100,000 in debt digging out of the legal mess he caused my family. Later I was finally able to hire another law office. I met Joe and we worked diligently on my case. I soon learn Joe had a passion for helping people. As anyone who has been through a legal battle it is exhausting. Joe was always more than happy to help or address an issue. Joe was knowledgeable about all my concerns at the same time he was able to reduce the stress and anxieties of my case. He would stay late and come in early, he always went the extra mile to help in any way he could. I can only imagine what Joe and his family has been through, my prayers go out to him and all the victims.

  2. Steele did more than what is listed too. He purposely sought out to ruin me, calling potential employers and then lied about me alleging all kinds of things including kidnapping. None of his allegations were true. If you are in need of an ethical and very knowledgeable family law paralegal, perhaps someone could post their contact information. Ethics cannot be purchased, either your paralegal has them or they do not.

  3. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  4. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  5. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise