Defendants identified the predictive coding set by using keywords against the collection – the keyword-hot documents were subjected to predictive coding (TAR). Plaintiffs object because they think the keywords tainted the process. However, the judge holds that sampling demonstrates the keyword process was sufficient; that whatever documents are left behind are not worth the cost of going back to get them.
“What Biomet has done complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 34(b)(2).”
“if the Steering Committee wishes production of documents that can be identified only through re-commenced processing, predictive coding, review, and production, the Steering Committee will have to bear the expense. ”