By John Rosenthal and Jason Moore ( November 2, 2017, 11:34 AM EDT) -- Recently, a handful of jurists and commentators[1] have caused a stir in the e-discovery community by trying to resurrect[2] the argument that litigants should avoid using search terms (aka "keyword searches" or "keyword filtering") to filter or cull a document population before employing a predictive coding engine for responsiveness determinations. The gist of their argument is that using search terms to reduce a document population necessarily results in relevant documents being excluded from the review population, thereby reducing the overall accuracy of the review effort in the interest of efficiency. While there is much to be said about the technical merits of such an argument, the most important point that we can raise is a philosophical one: So what? . . .
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.
This past year, a handful of attorneys secured billions of dollars in settlements and judgments for both classes and individual plaintiffs against massive companies and organizations like Facebook, Dell, the National Association of Realtors, Johnson & Johnson, UFC and Credit Suisse, earning them recognition as Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar for 2025.
