collected 19.5 million docs responsive sampling 3.9 million hit took hits 3 1 2 culled by keyword 4 TAR on 2.5 million deduped keyword docs IN RE: BIOMET M2a MAGNUM HIP ) IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) LITIGATION (MDL 2391) Here is what did: this is multidistrict litigation Plaintiff steering committee don't like it. is defendant did that stuff before centralization to satisfy discovery in pending cases They want TAR applied to entire set not just the keyword hits litigation bus What Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2). 1 you're invited invited plaintiff to contributed keywords (plaintiff declined) 2 starting over would entail a cost in the low seven-figures. 3 ...a comparatively modest number of documents would be found. based on sampling cases are now centralized NOTICE 4 offered to produce the non-privileged non-responsive documents from the 2.5 million if the Steering Committee wishes production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production, [it] will have to bear the expense. (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013
15.5 million took no keyword hits 1.4 million duped out collected 19.5 million docs responsive sampling 3.9 million hit took hits 3 1 2 culled by keyword 4 TAR on 2.5 million deduped keyword docs IN RE: BIOMET M2a MAGNUM HIP ) IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) LITIGATION (MDL 2391) Here is what did: this is multidistrict litigation Plaintiff steering committee don't like it. is defendant did that stuff before centralization to satisfy discovery in pending cases They want TAR applied to entire set not just the keyword hits litigation bus What Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2). 1 you're invited invited plaintiff to contributed keywords (plaintiff declined) 2 starting over would entail a cost in the low seven-figures. 3 ...a comparatively modest number of documents would be found. based on sampling cases are now centralized NOTICE 4 offered to produce the non-privileged non-responsive documents from the 2.5 million if the Steering Committee wishes production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production, [it] will have to bear the expense. (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013) TAR = technology assisted review, aka predictive coding approach has tainted the process original 19.5 million documents 1.37% to 2.47% responsive 1.55% to 1.33% responsive 15.5 million no keyword documents 16% responsive 2.5 million deduplicated keyword documents 1.4 million deduplicated not sampled 2.5 million duped remain
15.5 million took no keyword hits 1.4 million duped out collected 19.5 million docs responsive sampling 3.9 million hit took hits 3 1 2 culled by keyword 4 TAR on 2.5 million deduped keyword docs IN RE: BIOMET M2a MAGNUM HIP ) IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) LITIGATION (MDL 2391) Here is what did: this is multidistrict litigation Plaintiff steering committee don't like it. is defendant did that stuff before centralization to satisfy discovery in pending cases They want TAR applied to entire set not just the keyword hits litigation bus What Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2). 1 you're invited invited plaintiff to contributed keywords (plaintiff declined) 2 starting over would entail a cost in the low seven-figures. 3 ...a comparatively modest number of documents would be found. based on sampling cases are now centralized NOTICE 4 offered to produce the non-privileged non-responsive documents from the 2.5 million if the Steering Committee wishes production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production, [it] will have to bear the expense. (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013) TAR = technology assisted review, aka predictive coding approach has tainted the process original 19.5 million documents 1.37% to 2.47% responsive 1.55% to 1.33% responsive 15.5 million no keyword documents 16% responsive 2.5 million deduplicated keyword documents 1.4 million deduplicated not sampled 2.5 million duped remain
biomet They want TAR applied
Plaintiff steering committee don't like it. is defendant did that stuff before centralization to satisfy discovery in pending cases They want TAR applied to entire set not just the keyword hits litigation bus What Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2). 1 you're invited invited plaintiff to contributed keywords (plaintiff declined) 2 starting over would entail a cost in the low seven-figures. 3 ...a comparatively modest number of documents would be found. based on sampling cases are now centralized NOTICE 4 offered to produce the non-privileged non-responsive documents from the 2.5 million if the Steering Committee wishes production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production, [it] will have to bear the expense. (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013) TAR = technology assisted review, aka predictive coding approach has tainted the process
What Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2) invited plaintiff to contributed keywords (plaintiff declined)
starting over would entail a cost in the low seven-figures. 3 ...a comparatively modest number of documents would be found. based on sampling
starting over would entail a cost in the low seven-figures. 3 ...a comparatively modest number of documents would be found. based on sampling
biomet offered to produce the non-privileged non-responsive documents from the 2.5 million
if the Steering Committee wishes production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production, [it] will have to bear the expense.