The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
S.D.N.Y.: CAL Software Name and Workflow Makes Discovery Transparent
January 22, 2020
Today, Magistrate Judge James L. Cott issued a decision in an employment discrimination case, Kaye v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 18-CV-12137 (JPO) (JLC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9240 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020), denying the Plaintiff’s motion for judicial intervention regarding the Defendants’ ESI production.
The Court faulted the parties for failing to meet and confer about discovery including such issues as the defendants’ neglecting to submit a privilege log.
The Plaintiff failed to submit evidence to show the discovery process had been skewed. Discovery on discovery will only be allowed where there is a factual basis for it, and the cost and length of discovery won’t be extended “ad infinitum.” *4. The Plaintiff did not show a basis on which to review the Defendants’ search terms and culling protocol, since no deficiency was shown in the production.
“In this case, defendants have represented that they have provided detailed information regarding the collection criteria they used, the name of their continuous active learning ("CAL") software, their CAL review workflow, and how they intend to validate the review results. That is sufficient information to make the production transparent.” Id. at *4. The Plaintiff did not show a basis on which to review the Defendants’ search terms and culling protocol, since no deficiency was shown in the production.