Electronic Discovery Law
For Good Cause Shown, Plaintiffs No Longer Required to Utilize Predictive Coding
EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings, LLC, No. 7409-VCL, 2013 WL 1960621 (Del. Ch. May 6, 2013)
Previously, the court ordered the parties to “retain a single discovery vendor to be used by both sides” and to “conduct document review with the assistance of predictive coding.” (See summary, here.) On May 6, the court entered a new order, stating that Defendants could retain their chosen vendor and utilize computer assisted review but that the parties would not be required to retain a single vendor to be used by both sides and that “Plaintiffs may conduct document review using traditional review methods.”
The short text of the order reads as follows:
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2012, the Court entered an Order providing that, “[a]bsent a modification of this order for good cause shown, the parties shall (i) retain a single discovery vendor to be used by both sides, and (ii) conduct document review with the assistance of predictive coding;”
WHEREAS, the parties have proposed that HOA Holdings LLC and HOA Restaurant Group LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) retain ediscovery vendor Kroll OnTrack for electronic discovery;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that, based on the low volume of relevant documents expected to be produced in discovery by EORHB, Inc., Coby G. Brooks, Edward J. Greene, James P. Creel, Carter B. Wrenn and Glenn G. Brooks (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), the cost of using predictive coding assistance would likely be outweighed by any practical benefit of its use;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that there is no need for the parties to use the same discovery review platform;
WHEREAS, the requested modification of the Order will not prejudice any of the parties;
NOW THEREFORE, this –––– day of May 2013, for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(i) Defendants may retain ediscovery vendor Kroll OnTrack and employ Kroll OnTrack and its computer assisted review tools to conduct document review;
(ii) Plaintiffs and Defendants shall not be required to retain a single discovery vendor to be used by both sides; and
(iii) Plaintiffs may conduct document review using traditional methods.
K&L Gates practices out of 48 fully integrated offices located in the United States, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East and South America and represents leading global corporations, growth and middle-market companies, capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations, practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.
Portions of this Web site may contain Attorney Advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
e-Discovery Analysis & Technology group at K&L Gates, offering services related to ediscovery, review of electronic documents, electronic discovery and electronic evidence discovery.
K&L Gates LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 98104-1158
p. 206.623.7580, f. 206.623.7022