Is Transparent Predictive Coding Defensible?
As legal teams look to new technologies like predictive coding to enhance the review process, they often ask whether these technologies are defensible. If their use is challenged by opposing counsel in court, parties will have to explain and defend their approach. To minimize the risk of disagreements, the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation¹ encourages parties to cooperate with opposing counsel during the initial stages of the case and reach an agreement on the methods and technology that will be used. While cooperation reduces the risk of disagreements, parties will need to explain and defend their approach if consensus is not met.
In commenting on the defensibility of predictive coding, Judge Andrew Peck² has outlined three key questions that parties should be able to address:
- What was done?
- Did the process produce defensible results?
- Did the process produce "responsive documents with reasonably high recall and high precision?"
Transparent Predictive Coding is the first technology to include how predictions are generated, allowing reviewers to make more consistent and accurate review decisions. Using Prediction Insight, reviewers have visibility into why a tag was predicted for the document under review, including document content that supports the prediction. This visibility helps ensure that reviewers make accurate decisions and legal teams can defend review workflows. A quality control workflow enables users to measure review accuracy, identify inconsistent tagging, view disagreements, and compare predictions and human decisions to assess and improve review accuracy.
Every decision reviewers make is tracked in an exportable report to demonstrate process integrity to the court. Take control of the review process with highly accurate and defensible results using the Symantec eDiscovery Platform with Transparent Predictive Coding.