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?
Cooperation and Competence are Critical, Concludes One Court
United States v. New Mexico State Univ., No. 1:16-cv-00911-JAP-LF, 2017 WL 4386358 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2017)
This case, which arises from allegations of pay discrimination by New Mexico State University (“NMSU”) based on gender, in violation of Title VII, serves as an important reminder that all counsel – irrespective of one’s computer know-how – understand their ESI obligations and
Continue Reading Cooperation and Competence are Critical, Concludes One Court
Critical Road Map for ESI in Litigation
It is the beginning of a new year and I thought it the ideal time to list out those steps that are absolutely critical when an attorney is confronting his/her obligation to produce e-discovery in connection with a litigation. Bear in mind, the below list is not exhaustive and each step is replete with technical and tactical sub-steps and decisions.
Documents Identified by Agreed Upon Search Terms Do Not Necessarily Require Production of Those Documents
In Gardner v. Continental Cas. Co., (2016 WL 155002 [D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2016]), the District Court was called upon to decide two different issues raised by Plaintiffs in a motion to compel. The case itself concerned the long term care insurance coverage for five Connecticut residents for stays at Connecticut Managed Residential Care (“MRC”) facilities. As is