Indiana Court Judge Deems New Search of Biomet Hip Replacement Docs Unnecessary; Denies Plaintiff Request
The federal judge overseeing Biomet hip replacement lawsuits has issued an Order denying a request from plaintiffs that the manufacturer conduct a new search of documents relevant to the litigation using only predictive coding, after it had already done so using a combination of methods.
According to the Order issued April 18th, 2013, the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee proposed that Biomet go back to its 19.5 million documents and find information by solely employing predictive coding, rather than search for data by conducting predictive coding and keyword searches.
Plaintiffs in the litigation currently underway in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana say Biomet’s process of bringing to light information related to its M2a Magnum metal hip replacement was inefficient; the company should have come up with approximately 10 million documents, rather than the 2.5 million documents it has produced to date. They also argue it was conducted too early—before the Biomet litigation was created during the summer of 2012—due to the fact that the company was in disagreement with the centralization of federally-filed Biomet hip replacement lawsuits.
Court Denies Request for New Search of Biomet Hip Documents
However, Judge Robert L. Miller decided not to require that Biomet sift through its documents again using predictive coding, which pulls up data using software that “learns” a user’s preferences and goals to achieve greater accuracy. The software Biomet employed, called Axelerate, found information through rounds of “find more like this” interaction and reviewed them for privilege, confidentiality and relevancy, the Order states.
Biomet’s e-discovery costs now total about $1.07 million, and will end up totaling between $2 million and $3.25 million, Judge Miller indicated.
According to an article also published April 26th, 2013 by the Association of Corporate Counsel, the Court reviewed numerous Sedona Conference papers, and the rules of the Seventh Circuit Principles Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, and decided that a re-review of Biomet documents is unnecessary because the company fully complied with its discovery obligations. Biomet’s process of employing keyword searches and predictive coding is was also proportionate given the nature of the cases.
“The mere fact that predictive coding is an available tool doesn’t mean that it should be applied to every document in a client’s possession, custody or control,” the article stated.
Lawsuits filed over the Biomet M2a Magnum hip replacement allege injuries caused by the implant, which consists of a metal femoral head and pelvic cup. Recipients of this Biomet hip cases claim to have experienced the following unexplained hip pain; difficulty standing or walking; inflammation and soft tissue damage; loosening of the hip implant; and hip revision surgery.
How to File a Biomet Hip Lawsuit
If you experienced the above complications after receiving this Biomet hip, you may be eligible to file a claim against the manufacturer. Contact an attorney at Bernstein Liebhard LLP to learn more about your legal rights at (877) 779-1414.