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
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?
Magistrate Judge Peck’s Recent Decision on the Use of Predictive Coding and the Cooperative Obligations Involved
A little more than three years ago, federal Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck (SDNY), issued a seminal decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 11 Civ. 1279 (February 24, 2012). Indeed, in that ruling, Judge Peck sent a message that predictive coding and computer assisted review is an appropriate tool that should be “seriously
Continue Reading Magistrate Judge Peck’s Recent Decision on the Use of Predictive Coding and the Cooperative Obligations Involved