TAR

A lawsuit has been filed. Both parties have met and negotiated an ESI Protocol that has been formalized as a court order. Your review team has started the initial review and notices there are numerous duplicates. When this is brought to your attention, you discuss with your litigation support team and they suggest de-duplication and email threading as options. Which of the following would steps would be appropriate? In this blog, we'll dive into the next steps in this scenario and the importance of having an ESI Protocol in place.

Two recent decisions highlight the usefulness of phased e-discovery as a tool to satisfy Rule 26(b)(1)’s ever-important proportionality requirement. Model orders for patent cases in numerous courts require phased discovery, typically phasing email discovery to occur after other discovery and only if deemed necessary. However, phased discovery is becoming prevalent in other types of cases as well.

Recently, I began work on a complex litigation case that had millions of documents to review with many moving parts and quick deadlines that made completing assignments daunting, to say the least. We determined that simply running targeted searches to find this evidence was not the best approach, in part because the issues were broadly defined and had multiple subparts, and in part because of the sheer number of documents in the database (over 2.5 million records). As an alternative, we decided to utilize technology assisted review or “TAR” (also known in the industry as predictive coding). What follows is my impression of the tool.