미국 전자증거개시절차상 기술지원 검토에 관한 소고
A few thoughts on the technology assisted review on the U.S. E-discovery
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Since entering the information society, the digitization of various data and the increasing capacity of storage devices have been continuing. This leads to an increase in the amount of electronically stored information to be used as evidence in disputes, and the related costs are also increasing. In the US, the burden of collecting and reviewing the evidence now amounts to about 70% of the total cost of the E-discovery. Therefore, the United States is trying to reduce costs by utilizing the latest technology to collect and review evidence in the E-discovery. In particular, the technology assisted review(TAR) represented by Predictive Coding was officially recognized by the Federal Court in 2012 and received a lot of attention. Since then, the TAR has begun to be used in the E-discovery, courts have begun to make various judgments on the issues of the TAR. Although there is a negative evaluation based on the limitations of the TAR, there is also a positive evaluation that the TAR is regarded as the future of the E-discovery. The use of technology as one of the means to reduce the time and expense of collecting and reviewing evidence in the E-discovery is already attractive enough. And, as technological development progresses, it is expected that the problems pointed out as limitations will be largely overcome. In Korea, the introduction of the E-discovery is under discussion in the Civil Procedure, and the active use of technology in the litigation procedures can increase procedural efficiency. Therefore, judicial precedents and discussions on the TAR in the US E-discovery is considered to be worthy of review because they provide basic data for the change of our system. In this article, the following contents were reviewed. First, briefly summarized the basic contents of the TAR in the E-discovery. Second, the precedent for the issues of the TAR in the E-discovery was reviewed. Third, the discussions on limitations on the utilization of the TAR were reviewed. Fourth, the prospect of utilization of the TAR and implications for our system were reviewed.
Abstract
Since entering the information society, the digitization of various data and the increasing capacity of storage devices have been continuing. This leads to an increase in the amount of electronically stored information to be used as evidence in disputes, and the related costs are also increasing. In the US, the burden of collecting and reviewing the evidence now amounts to about 70% of the total cost of the E-discovery. Therefore, the United States is trying to reduce costs by utilizing the latest technology to collect and review evidence in the E-discovery. In particular, the technology assisted review(TAR) represented by Predictive Coding was officially recognized by the Federal Court in 2012 and received a lot of attention. Since then, the TAR has begun to be used in the E-discovery, courts have begun to make various judgments on the issues of the TAR. Although there is a negative evaluation based on the limitations of the TAR, there is also a positive evaluation that the TAR is regarded as the future of the E-discovery. The use of technology as one of the means to reduce the time and expense of collecting and reviewing evidence in the E-discovery is already attractive enough. And, as technological development progresses, it is expected that the problems pointed out as limitations will be largely overcome. In Korea, the introduction of the E-discovery is under discussion in the Civil Procedure, and the active use of technology in the litigation procedures can increase procedural efficiency. Therefore, judicial precedents and discussions on the TAR in the US E-discovery is considered to be worthy of review because they provide basic data for the change of our system. In this article, the following contents were reviewed. First, briefly summarized the basic contents of the TAR in the E-discovery. Second, the precedent for the issues of the TAR in the E-discovery was reviewed. Third, the discussions on limitations on the utilization of the TAR were reviewed. Fourth, the prospect of utilization of the TAR and implications for our system were reviewed.
참고문헌 (35)
- 김도훈, "미국 전자증거개시절차상 증거검색 및 수집방법에 관한 연구― 기술지원 검토를 중심으로 ―", 강원법학, 41, pp.217~252 (2014), 비교법학연구소
- 김도훈, "미국 전자증거개시절차상 변호사의 기술역량구비의무에 관한 소고", 법학논집, 21(1), pp.67~94 (2016), 법학연구소
- 김도훈, "미국 전자증거개시절차상 협력에 관한 연구", 미국헌법연구, 27(1), pp.1~35 (2016), 미국헌법학회
- 유정호, "eDiscovery 이해와 위기관리 전략" (2014), 이포더북스
- Adam M. Acosta, "Predictive coding: the beginning of a new e-discovery era", Computer & Internet Lawyer, 30(5) (2013)
- Annika K. Martin, "How to stop worrying and love predictive coding", JAN Trial, 52, pp.36~ (2016)
- Benjamin L. S. Ritz, "Will this dog hunt?: An attorney’s guide to predictivecoding", S. Tex. L. Rev, 57, pp.345~ (2016)
- Bruce Hedin, "Overview of the TREC 2009 Legal Track, in NIST special publication: SP500~278", The eighteenth text retrieval conference(TREC 2009) Proceedings (2009)
- Charles Vaccaro, "Look before you leap into predictivecoding: An argument for a cautious approach to utilizing predictivecoding", Rutgers Computer & Tech. L. J, 41, pp.298~ (2015)
- Charles Yablon, "Nick Landsman-Roos, Predictive coding: Emerging questions and concerns", S.C.L.Rev, 64, pp.633~ (2013)
- Christina T. Nasuti, "Shaping the technology of the future: Predictive coding in discovery case law and regulatory disclosure requirements", N.C.L.Rev, 93, pp.222~ (2014)
- Craig Ball, "What every lawyer should know about e-discovery – You need to fully understand far more than the basics", Law Prac, 42(2), pp.54~ (2016)
- Debra Cassens Weiss, "Posner: Lawyers bad at math are an increasing concern; inmate's blood-pressure suit shows why", A.B.A.J. (2013)
- Edward Sohn, "Top Ten Concepts to Understand about PredictiveCoding", ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE COUNSEL (2013)
- Elle Byram, "The collision of the courts and predictive coding: defining best practices and guidelines in predictive coding for electronic discovery", Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J, 29, pp.675~ (2013)
- Harrison M. Brown, "Searching for an answer: defensible e-discovery search techniques in the absence of judicial voice", Chap. L. Rev, 16, pp.407~ (2013)
- Hon. Joy Flowers Conti, "E-discovery ethics:Emerging standards of technological competence", NOV Fed. Law, 62, pp.28~ (2015)
- Jacob Tingen, "Technologies-that-must-not-be-named: Understanding and implementing advanced search technologies in e-discovery", Rich.J.L. & Tech, 19, pp.2~ (2012)
- Jason Krause, "Predictive coding has something to prove – Courts and Judges embrace it, but is it really fixing discovery?", FEB A.B.A.J, 101, pp.32~ (2015)
- Johnathan Jenkins, "What can information technology do for law?", HARV.J.L. & TECH, 21, pp.589~ (2008)
- Julia L. Brickell, "Towards a synthesis of judicial perspectives on technology-assisted review", Def.Couns.J, 82, pp.309~ (2015)
- Maura R. Grossman, "Technology-assisted review in e-discovery can be more effective and more efficient than exhaustive manual review", Rich. J. L. & Tech, 17, pp.11~ (2011)
- Melissa Whittingham, "Predictive Coding: E-Discovery Game Changer?", EDDE Journal, 12 (2011)
- Nicholas Barry, "Man versus machine review: the showdown between hordes of discovery lawyers and a computer-utilizing predictive-coding technology", Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L, 15, pp.343~ (2013)
- Paul E. Burns, "Technology-assisted review: the judicial pioneers", Sedona Conf. J, 15, pp.35~ (2014)
- Sheryl Nance-Nash, "Predictivecoding and emerging e-discovery tools", CORPORATE SECRETARY (2013)
- Tonia Hap Murphy, "Madating use of predictive coding in electronic discovery: An ill-advised judicial intrusion", Am. Bus. L.J, 50, pp.609~ (2013)
- The Sedona Conference TAR Case Law Primer, "The Sedona Conference", The Sedona Conference, ~ (2016)
- Ernst & Young LLP, "Insiders' Guide to Technology-Assisted Review (TAR)" (2015), Wiley
- Nicholas M. Pace, "Where the money goes: understanding litigant expenditures for producing electronic discovery", RAND (2012)
- Shira A. Scheindlin, "Electronic discovery and digital evidence" (2012), WEST