My February 17th blog, “Judges Make the Case for TAR” discussed the widespread acceptance by federal courts of technology assisted review (“TAR”), which is acknowledged as cost effective, efficient, and likely superior to the tried and true keyword searching methodology. Continuing with the theme of TAR, the District Court of New Jersey recently addressed the critical importance of
Continue Reading Cooperation and Collaboration in E-Discovery is Still the TARget
The City of Chicago Employs “TAR” to Facilitate Review, But Doing So Is Not Without Issue
In today’s “e”-dense world, attorneys often look to leverage technology to facilitate production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) during the discovery process. We do so in an effort to streamline the collection, review and production process whereby containing costs. However, as recent decisions demonstrate, parties often disagree on what methodology to use and which analytic tools are best. Livingston v
Continue Reading The City of Chicago Employs “TAR” to Facilitate Review, But Doing So Is Not Without Issue
In What Format Should I Make My Production? And, Does Format Matter?
The issue of production format when dealing with ESI is often the subject of discussion and disagreement. If possible, the parties to the litigation should agree at the outset to the production format. In fact, a conversation about production format, metadata and redactions (among other things) should occur at the preliminary conference and/or the Rule 26 conference. However, this
Continue Reading In What Format Should I Make My Production? And, Does Format Matter?
Important Update for Those Who Practice in the Commercial Division of the NYS Supreme Courts
On October 1, 2018, a new Rule (specifically, a new subdivision to existing Rule 11-e) of the Commercial Division Rules, will go into effect.
Rule 11-e governs Responses and Objections to Document Requests. The new subdivision, promulgated by administrative Order of Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks, governs the use of technology-assisted review (“TAR”) in the discovery process.
When Are Redactions Based Upon Relevance (or, a Lack Thereof) Permissible?
In IDC Financial Publishing, Inc. v. Bonddesk Group, LLC (15-cv-1085-pp, 2017 WL 4863202 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2017)), the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted IDC’s motion to compel the production of more than 600 documents that had previously been produced by Bonddesk with extensive non-responsive redactions applied.
Bonddesk argued that the applied redactions were necessary to protect confidential business
Continue Reading When Are Redactions Based Upon Relevance (or, a Lack Thereof) Permissible?