Monique Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & Msl Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (2012)

Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge “recognizes that computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases”.

While making the point that

“the best approach to the use of computer-assisted coding is to follow the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation model. Advise opposing counsel that you plan to use computer-assisted coding and seek agreement; if you cannot, consider whether to abandon predictive coding for that case or go to the court for advance approval”

the judge approves predictive coding even without agreement of the parties:

“This Opinion appears to be the first in which a Court has approved of the use of computer-assisted review. That does not mean computer-assisted review must be used in all cases, or that the exact ESI protocol approved here will be appropriate in all future cases that utilize computer-assisted review…What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that computer-assisted review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review…As with keywords or any other technological solution to ediscovery, counsel must design an appropriate process, including use of available technology, with appropriate quality control testing, to review and produce relevant ESI while adhering to Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) proportionality. Computer- assisted review now can be considered judicially-approved for use in appropriate cases.”


The full text is available at…

Open pdf


Related documents:

Matthew Nelson, Computer-Assisted Review “Acceptable in Appropriate Cases,” says Judge Peck in new Da Silva Moore eDiscovery Ruling

Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 868 F. Supp. 2d 137, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83659, 2012 WL 2218729 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)