Save Money: Let The Computers Do The Work

So new technologies are emerging and being accepted by courts that can dramatically reduce the costs of electronic discovery.  Two that come to mind are predictive coding and remote data collection.

Early last year Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck considered and approved the use of predictive coding technology in the Da Silva Moore matter.  Granted, Peck is far ahead of the eDiscovery curve than most - I'd call him a pioneer - but where one judge goes, so eventually follow many.  The takeaway was that predictive coding is a technology that, under certain circumstances, should be considered and implemented.

In April of last year, Circuit Court Judge James H. Chamblin approved the use of predictive coding for Global Aerospace Inc., et al, v. Landow Aviation, L.P. dba Dulles Jet Center, et al, over the plaintiff's objections.  It seems that as the application of technology can help reduce the often overwhelming costs of reviewing large data sets while still producing relevant results, judges will have to be open to the idea of allowing these technologies in their courts.

Another such technology is so-called remote data collection.  The idea is that an investigator or agent of legal counsel sets up or configures the data collection (what is to be collected), but the collection is actually triggered by the data custodian.  While the implementations of these can vary, the basic idea remains: save money by letting the custodians trigger the collection rather than have a team of technicians travel to each custodian site, while maintaining defensibility by not allowing the data custodian to interfere with the data collection.

Two examples of this type of technology are Remlox, which uses a special hard drive outfitted with a keypad and is sold only by IKON/Ricoh, and a software tool called BlackBox, which allows the agent of legal counsel to either set up and send the hard drive to the data custodian, or to prepare the hard drive remotely at the custodian's site.  These data collection tools are being used for legal matters in the U.S. and Europe, but they have largely not been challenged in court.

It's clear that the costs of electronic discovery, which are driven largely by the large volume of electronically stored information, and for data collections by the cost of travel, are pushing courts to consider new technologies that help control these costs.  I predict that in 2013 many more courts will accept these types of technologies so that they will soon become mainstream.