ARCHIVED CONTENT
You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online between 1 April 2010 and 24 August 2018 or content that has been selectively archived and is no longer active. Content in this archive is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function.By Herbert L. Roitblat, Ph.D.
In many ways it is gratifying that so much attention is being paid to measurement in eDiscovery. The late Macyl Burke is, I think, most responsible for bringing measurement to the attention of attorneys. For as long as I knew him, the assessment of quality was always one of his top priorities, and one of his major missions was to bring that priority to eDiscovery. I very much want to promote the idea of measuring the outcome of eDiscovery, but for measurement to be useful, it has to be practical, reasonable, consequential, and understandable. I think that measurement has drifted away from its useful goals and become something that we do in eDiscovery mainly because we think we should. Worse, I think that it has become something of a distraction.
The goal of eDiscovery is not to achieve certain measures but to effectively identify the responsive documents. I fear that measurement has become an end itself, rather than a means to effective eDiscovery. Perhaps worse, there is a risk that parties may use measurement as a weapon in eDiscovery, imposing unreasonable burdens for dubious value. It’s time to bring a little more rationality to our measurement methods in eDiscovery.
Read the complete article at: Rational Measurement in eDiscovery