The uproar over predictive coding following the recent order by Judge Miller in the BioMet case ( In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2391), has prompted a real focus on both the products (more on that in a subsequent post) and the process used in that case. The latter of course has always seemed to me far more important than the former and by coincidence a separate blog post brought that point home once again this week.
Bob Ambrogi is a well known lawyer, media and technology professional as well as an avid blogger. Earlier this week he posted a review of a book I co-authored, EDiscovery for Small Cases, and in his review wrote the following:
“For a book about technology, perhaps the best advice it contains is decidedly non-technological. It comes early on, in a chapter entitled, “A Cooperative Approach to Managing E-Discovery in Smaller Cases,” and the point is simple. The best way to reduce costs in e-discovery, the authors argue, is to use your skills as a lawyer to think through what you really want, be specific in your discovery requests, and take full advantage of the meet-and-confer to cooperate with opposing counsel.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: ediscovery has become way too much about about the “E” and not about the discovery. As Bruce Olson and I say in our book, “Planning, a targeted approach to discovery, cooperation between counsel, and the use of the proper tools to meet your specific case needs can help you lessen the cost of e-discovery in smaller cases.”
Or large ones for that matter. More on that in a post later today.
