On July 13, 2016 the Tax Court basically found that the use of predicting coding does not alter discovery standards for response completeness. This is the background: In September 2014 the Tax Court found that predictive coding is an expedited and efficient form of computer-assisted review that allows parties in litigation to avoid the time […]
On March 15, 2013, the ` issued an opinion in a dispute over non-party discovery. The opinion is interesting because the Court recommended the use of TAR to reduce discovery costs and burden. The Court observed that “predictive coding is an automated method that credible sources say has been demonstrated to result in more accurate searches […]
On February 18, 2014, the New York District Court issued an order in a gender discrimination class action, which among others, allowed the compelled party to manually review the documents resulting from an agreed-upon search term query. The Court considered the use of search terms to be a form of TAR. Since neither party agreed to produce documents […]
On March 10, 2014, the Nebraska District Court, issued an order with which it instructed the parties to use predictive coding in connection with the first phase of discovery. The parties had not considered the use of TAR. However, the Court asked the parties to “consult with a computer forensic expert to create search protocols, […]
Public comments on TAR. On August 2016, the Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention (WG1) published the TAR Case Law Primer. The document discusses more than 30 decisions from state, federal, and foreign courts and administrative agencies addressing the use of Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) in civil discovery. The WG1 encourages public comment on […]
On August 1, 2016, a New York District Court issued an opinion stating that a party cannot be forced to use TAR (technology assisted review) when it prefers to use keyword searching. In this employment discrimination case, the parties faced a major discovery dispute over which search methodology was to be used: keywords or TAR. […]
On June 27, 2016, the English High Court approved the use of predictive coding over the objection of one of the parties. The opposing party argued that predictive coding should not be used to carry out the disclosure review since the process would not be accurate and relevant documents could be missed. The requesting party […]
Four years after Da Silva Moorev. Publicis Groupe., 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), laid the foundation for use of predictive coding or technology assisted review (TAR) in electronic discovery, Judge Peck has issued a new opinion dealing with predictive coding. In this fraud case, he stressed that it is “inappropriate to hold TAR to a […]
For the first time in the UK, on February 16, 2016, a court (the High Court of Justice Chancery Division, Master Matthews) approved the use of predictive coding in e-disclosure. Pyrrho Investments Limited v MWB Property Limited, [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch). Noting that there were no English precedent (¶32), the Master relied on some US […]
Four years after Da Silva Moorev. Publicis Groupe., 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), laid the foundation for use of predictive coding or technology assisted review (TAR) in electronic discovery, Judge Peck has issued a new opinion dealing with predictive coding. In this fraud case, he stressed that it is “inappropriate to hold TAR to a […]