Predictive coding — it is a frequent topic of conversation at national e-discovery conferences, in legal technology-focused publications, and any other place where e-discovery practitioners are likely to congregate. In 2012, Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Group thrust the concept of predictive coding upon the legal world, and the e-discovery landscape has never been quite the same. It’s easy to say that no other case has generated as many CLE approved sessions yet delivered to such a relatively small percentage of the legal profession.
But, Da Silva Moore is not without its faults – most notably, it has led to several erroneous conclusions. The first is the question about predictive coding and when “seed sets” (the documents used to train the predictive coding engine) must be shared. This, perhaps more than any other aspect of the case, made many people believe that if Da Silva Moore represented what predictive coding was all about, then they would pass. It also led many people to believe that all predictive coding review processes were basically the same, another factually incorrect conclusion.