Independent Living Center of Southern California v. City of Los Angeles

No. 2:12 Civ. 551 (2014)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Independent Living Center of Southern California v. City of Los Angeles

United States District Court for the Central District of California
No. 2:12 Civ. 551 (2014)

RW

Facts

Independent Living Center of Southern California (center) (plaintiff) sued the City of Los Angeles (city) (defendant) in January 2012. The center’s electronic-discovery (e-discovery) request required the city to review over two million pieces of electronically stored information (ESI). The parties could not agree on how best to screen the ESI to identify relevant and discoverable material. As a result, the parties missed the court’s September 2013 deadline for completion of discovery. The court met with the parties in an attempt to work out a mutually satisfactory search protocol. Over the next nine months, the court met with the parties 11 times, usually for an hour or more each time. When the parties still could not reach agreement, the court ordered the city to use the predictive-coding form of technology-assisted review (TAR) to identify 10,000 of the most relevant ESI documents. The city hired Equivio, a contractor, to perform this work. In mid-June 2014, the court convened a twelfth conference and ordered the center to review the documents that Equivio identified. Following the mid-June conference, the center asked the court to order Equivio to subject those documents to a quality-assurance (QA) test. The court devised four questions designed to elicit Equivio’s opinion as to the need for such testing and directed the parties’ technical experts to discuss the questions with Equivio. The experts came back with opposing accounts of Equivio’s responses to the questions. The court convened a thirteenth conference with the parties late in June 2014.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Walsh, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership