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
Judges Make the Case for TAR
Litigants often disagree about which method of identifying potentially responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”) is best. Specifically, the use of keywords versus technology assisted review (“TAR”)* is typically the topic of the debate. In deciding these disputes, Judges have seemingly embraced TAR as preferable, but stop short of mandating TAR’s use, citing to Principle 6 of The Sedona Principles…
Continue Reading Judges Make the Case for TAR
TAR 1.0 vs TAR 2.0: Is the Newer Version the Better Version?
Technology-assisted review (“TAR”) is a powerful tool used to streamline document review. Because data volume is constantly increasing, TAR was designed to leverage human categorization of documents (i.e., responsive/not responsive) to educate software, that would, in turn, categorize additional documents based upon what the computer had “learned.”
The original TAR (commonly known as TAR 1.0) was a welcomed advancement…
Continue Reading TAR 1.0 vs TAR 2.0: Is the Newer Version the Better Version?
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
If the Proportionality Doesn’t Fit, Courts May Cost-Shift
Generally, the party producing discovery bears the costs of production. But, shifting to the non-producing party the costs of production is sometimes warranted. This issue was recently tackled by a Kansas District Court in the matter Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, 2020 WL 3288058 (D. Kan. June 18, 2020).
Background
Following his retirement from Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.’s (“Spirit”), plaintiff Larry…
Continue Reading If the Proportionality Doesn’t Fit, Courts May Cost-Shift
How to Defensibly Limit Data During Discovery
Technology has revolutionized, among other things, the way people conduct business, store information and communicate with others. And, despite the many efficiencies and benefits of technology, a downside of this “revolution” is the creation of countless files that may later be subject to review and potential production during litigation /investigation proceedings. Indeed, even relatively small cases routinely involve the collection…
Continue Reading How to Defensibly Limit Data During Discovery
Technology Assisted Review At a Glance
Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls upon courts and litigants to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” And so, it comes as no surprise that technology assisted review (“TAR”) is being widely embraced by the legal profession.
What is TAR?
TAR (also called predictive coding, computer assisted review, or supervised…
Continue Reading Technology Assisted Review At a Glance
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.
What Can A Litigator Do When There are Hundreds of Thousands of Documents to Review in a Short Period of Time, and a Strict Litigation Budget is in Place?
Traditional document review can be one of the most variable and expensive aspects of the discovery process. The good news is that there are innumerable analytic tools available to empower attorneys to work smarter, whereby reducing discovery costs and allowing attorneys to focus sooner on the data most relevant to the litigation. And, while various vendors have “proprietary” tools with…
Continue Reading What Can A Litigator Do When There are Hundreds of Thousands of Documents to Review in a Short Period of Time, and a Strict Litigation Budget is in Place?
Document Preservation: Why Precision and Recall Matter
When one preserves and collects electronic data for a litigation, one typically casts a broad net. This, in turn, can result in the preservation and collection of a significant volume of documents that are not relevant to the dispute at hand. In an effort to identify the most likely relevant documents from the cache that has been broadly preserved and…
Continue Reading Document Preservation: Why Precision and Recall Matter