1
00:00:04,530 --> 00:00:07,810
Let's conclude with a word about
the status of predictive coding

2
00:00:07,810 --> 00:00:09,600
today.

3
00:00:09,600 --> 00:00:13,250
In legal systems, it's difficult
to change existing practice

4
00:00:13,250 --> 00:00:16,450
because of laws reliant
on past precedent, which

5
00:00:16,450 --> 00:00:20,850
causes current decisions to be
made on the basis of past ones.

6
00:00:20,850 --> 00:00:23,920
Because the types of
eDiscovery admissible in court

7
00:00:23,920 --> 00:00:27,070
have historically been limited
to keyword search coupled

8
00:00:27,070 --> 00:00:29,810
with manual review,
nearly all cases

9
00:00:29,810 --> 00:00:32,950
today use this
eDiscovery approach.

10
00:00:32,950 --> 00:00:36,610
However, this status quo seems
to be starting to change.

11
00:00:36,610 --> 00:00:40,540
In 2012, a US District Court
ruled that predictive coding

12
00:00:40,540 --> 00:00:43,060
was a legitimate
eDiscovery tool, which

13
00:00:43,060 --> 00:00:47,750
may pave the way for its
expanded use in coming years.