Overview
Earlier today, Judge Carter upheld Magistrate Judge’s Peck’s decision not to recuse himself in the gender discrimination case that we’ve been following closely (see here for prior posts). Magistrate Judge Peck had ordered the parties to conduct e-discovery using a “predictive coding” method, and the plaintiffs sought to recuse him because of his public advocacy of predictive coding. Judge Carter disagreed:
Judge Peck is known as “one of this Court's experts in e-discovery.” National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 2012 WL 2878130, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Here, it is undisputed that the parties agreed to defendants’ use of predictive coding and only disagreed on the scope and implementation. (1/4/12 Conf. Tr. at 51.) Predictive coding does not inherently favor one party over the other in this case. Judge Peck's decision accepting computer-assisted review, reached upon consideration of the applicable law, was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias.
