Biomet Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
2013 WL 1729682 (2013)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Hundreds of consumers formed a steering committee (plaintiffs) to represent them in a federal products-liability action against Biomet (defendant), the manufacturer of artificial-hip implants that the consumers alleged were defective. Biomet’s electronically stored information (ESI) comprised over 19 million documents that were potentially responsive to the steering committee’s electronic-discovery (e-discovery) request. Biomet’s keyword searches reduced that document universe to a pool of approximately two million documents. Biomet planned to strain that pool using predictive coding. Statistical sampling indicated that Biomet’s plan was 99 percent certain to further reduce the responsive ESI to no more than a half-million documents and to overlook no more than a quarter-million responsive documents. The steering committee contended that the two-million-document pool was tainted by the initial keyword searches and moved for a court order directing Biomet to run predictive coding against the original universe of 19 million documents. By this time, Biomet already had spent over one million dollars on e-discovery and anticipated doubling or tripling that amount.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.