Source: https://www.gregcarter.com.au/2014/04/09/predictive-coding-electronic-discovery/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:46:03+00:00

Document:
A quiet revolution is occurring in the e-discovery space called predictive coding. In the United States there is growing judicial support for this new method of discovery, which promises to substantially reduce the scale of manual discovery exercises and hence to dramatically reduce the cost of discovery.
Documents can be coded for relevance as required eg for specific issues and privilege.
The process is repeated and refined until the output is measured as being statistically reliable.
Predictive coding avoids the need for human review of significant proportions of large document collections that are deemed non-relevant, leading to substantial cost savings. The process itself is not inexpensive but becomes more cost-effective with greater volumes of documents.
It appears that it will only be a matter of time before predictive coding and other technology assisted discovery review processes enter the vocabulary of judicial decision-making in Australia.
Disputes will inevitably arise, as they have in the United States, over the negotiation of e-discovery protocols and the completeness of other parties’ e-discovery undertaken using increasingly sophisticated techniques such as predictive coding.
Litigators who themselves possess expertise in e-discovery will be in demand for such disputes, in addition to the negotiation, management and implementation of appropriate e-discovery processes.
1. Maura R. Grossman and Gordon V. Cormack, ‘The Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology-Assisted Review’ (2013) Federal Courts Law Review 7(1), 26.
4. See, e.g., EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings, Civ. Ac. No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 19, 2012); Kleen Prods. LLC v. Packaging Corp., Civ. No. 10C 5711, 2012 WL 4498465 at *84-85 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012); In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 6:11-md-2299 (W.D. La. July 27, 2012); Global Aerospace Inc. v. Landow Aviation, L.P., No. CL 61040 (Va. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012); Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ACL) (AJP), 2012 WL 607412 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012).
5. Maura R. Grossman and Gordon V. Cormack, ‘Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery can be more Effective and More Efficient than Exhaustive Manual Review‘, (2011) Richmond Journal of Law and Technology XVII (3). This article is often cited in support of the view that technology assisted review processes are more accurate and efficient than exhaustive manual review.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.