By: Andrew Bartholomew
In what has been one of the most closely watched e-discovery cases of the year, Kleen Products, LLC, et. al. v. Packaging Corporation of America, et. Al, the plaintiffs, Kleen Products, have officially dropped their demand that the defendants use computer-assisted review technology for e-discovery.
Kleen has been viewed by many e-discovery experts as a major bellwether case for the future of computer-assisted review. During two days of fiery evidentiary hearings in February and March, the plaintiffs asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan to order the defendants, Packaging Corporation of America (PCA), to redo their previous productions and all future productions using computer-assisted review technology. The defendants refuted on the grounds that their use of keyword search technology and their overall discovery methodology was adequately thorough. Reluctant to take a specific side, Judge Nolan instructed the parties to agree on a search strategy and resolve the issues on their own.
In a six-page stipulation filed with the court earlier this week, the plaintiffs indicated that the parties “continue to have a number of disputes” but that they would no longer “claim that defendants must use an electronic search process.” (A copy of the stipulation was made available on the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) website here)
Much like the Da Silva Moore case earlier this year, which ended up settling early in the discovery process, it appears Kleen will also fail to produce the predictive coding benchmark that many experts anticipated.