미국 전자증거개시절차상 기술지원 검토에 관한 소고 (A few thoughts on the technology assisted review on the U.S. E-discovery)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소
· 수록지 정보 : IT와 법연구 / 14호 / 383 ~ 419페이지
· 저자명 : 김도훈

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.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음