Key Insight: Plaintiff sought to expand the scope of defendants? review and argued that defendants? alleged cost and burden would be lower than represented because defendants based their representations on manual review, rather than predictive coding. Defendants responded that manual review was still necessary where the predictive coding tool merely indicated a probability that a document was relevant and was not ?foolproof? – thus requiring the review. Relying on Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the court concluded that the additional discovery would be unduly burdensome and declined to grant Plaintiff?s request. The court also addressed Plaintiff?s request to require the defendants to run documents already produced through the predictive coding process. The court declined, reasoning that it had previously approved defendants? method of ?using linear screening with the aid of search terms? but, where defendant was willing to run additional terms, directed the parties to meet to discuss such terms.
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email