Tag Archives: TAR

Perfection Not Required in Technology Assisted Review, but Transparency Might Be

A recent discovery order in a Southern District of New York public housing lottery discrimination case supported the use of technology assisted review (TAR) but required additional transparency, providing another view into how judges will consider the use of advanced analytics in litigation. In Winfield v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker … Continue Reading

E-Discovery Standards and the 26(g) Signature That Drives the Market

By James A. Sherer on July 10, 2017 Posted in E-Discovery Rules

We begin with three quick questions: 1. Which legal practice has created and fueled a multibillion-dollar support industry? 2. Which legal practice employs incomprehensible acronyms that require a glossary apart from Black’s Law Dictionary? 3. Which legal practice motivates debates between non-lawyer computer scientists and academics? If you guessed e-discovery (perhaps because you’re reading an … Continue Reading

Want to Get Primed for TAR? The Sedona Conference Has You Covered

By Gilbert S. Keteltas on February 1, 2017 Posted in TAR, The Sedona Conference

The Sedona Conference recently announced the release of its Technology Assisted Review (TAR) Case Law Primer. While this final version of the primer will be published in the Summer 2017 Sedona Conference Journal, the final/prepublication edition can be downloaded at no charge here. Why is this primer needed? As noted by The Sedona Conference’s deputy … Continue Reading

TAR Preferred, Keywords Acceptable – Focus on Defensible Process!

By Gilbert S. Keteltas on August 10, 2016 Posted in TAR

It’s hard not to feel a bit embarrassed for all the bloggers who await, and write about, nearly everything Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck (S.D.N.Y.) writes about the search for and production of electronically stored information (ESI). We’re far more guarded over here at Discovery Advocate, only commenting a few times (here, here, here, here, here … Continue Reading

Judge Peck’s Latest Decision on Technology Assisted Review (TAR): Our Past Blog Posts Revisited

By Gilbert S. Keteltas on March 9, 2015 Posted in Predictive Coding, TAR

Many who consider Magistrate Judge Peck’s recent opinion and order in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., which he titled “Predictive Coding a.k.a. Computer Assisted Review a.k.a. Technology Assisted Review (TAR) – Da Silva Moore Revisited,” will focus on his declaration “that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to … Continue Reading

From Sedona to Georgetown to New York—What’s Fashionable in eDiscovery This Year?

By James A. Sherer and Karin Scholz Jenson on December 10, 2014 Posted in E-Discovery Advocacy and Management, E-Discovery Rules, LegalTech, TAR, The Sedona Conference

It’s that time of year, when bench, bar, vendors, and clients think big eDiscovery thoughts. They go to The Sedona Conference (which is not in Sedona), Georgetown Law’s Advanced eDiscovery Institute (which is not at Georgetown Law—but close!), and in a few short months, LegalTech New York (which, bucking the trend, is in New York). … Continue Reading

Bring Your Geek to the Supreme Court Day Cancelled for Lack of Interest

By Gilbert S. Keteltas on October 11, 2013 Posted in Predictive Coding, TAR

Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck has observed that judicial understanding and resolution of ediscovery disputes can benefit from “bring your geek to court day” — where those knowledgeable about ESI issues in a case participate in court conferences. As we predicted, the Supreme Court isn’t yet ready for Bring Your Geek to the Supreme Court Day. … Continue Reading

A plea to LegalTech vendors and panelists talking technology-assisted review!

By Gilbert S. Keteltas on January 24, 2013 Posted in E-Discovery Advocacy and Management, TAR

LegalTech New York is right around the corner. And, much like the recent Georgetown Advanced Ediscovery Institute, there will be no shortage of discussion about predictive coding/technology-assisted review (“TAR”). The agenda includes fourteen program descriptions that directly reference TAR and another eight that clearly suggest TAR will be a major topic. As a user, student … Continue Reading

Kleen Products Stipulation Resolves Request that Court Mandate Technology Assisted Review (for now)

By Brian Esser on August 22, 2012 Posted in Predictive Coding, TAR

As discussed in prior posts, the Da Silva Moore case is not the only story in the saga of predictive coding, or technology-assisted review (TAR). We alerted you that a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois was hearing expert testimony on the effectiveness TAR. The discovery disputes in Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging … Continue Reading

Learning and Teaching About Predictive Coding Are Not Bases for Recusal – More on Da Silva Moore

By Gilbert S. Keteltas on June 20, 2012 Posted in Predictive Coding, TAR

Co-Authored by: Judy Selby and Jessica Nutt In prior posts, we’ve commented on the emerging judicial focus on the use of technology-assisted review/predictive coding, as well as the twists and turns of Da Silva Moore, in which Magistrate Judge Peck permitted the use of predictive coding in a groundbreaking decision, only to face demands for … Continue Reading

District Court Upholds Da Silva Moore Predictive Coding Order

By Judy Selby on April 27, 2012 Posted in Predictive Coding, TAR

Contributing Authors: Gil Keteltas and Jessica Nutt Just as we were predicting that the disqualification side show in Da Silva Moore would “not prevent the district court from reaching the merits of the predictive coding dispute,” Judge Andrew Carter’s April 25th order adopted “Judge Peck’s rulings because they were well reasoned and they consider the … Continue Reading

New Horizons in Three Concurrent Cases: Predicting the Future of Predictive Coding

By Judy Selby on April 25, 2012 Posted in Predictive Coding, TAR

Co-authored by: Jessica Nutt Add a recent Virginia state court order to the growing list of orders regarding the use of technology assisted review (TAR)/predictive coding to reduce the burdens and costs – and, some would claim, to increase the accuracy — of review of electronically stored information (ESI). In a short order, half handwritten, … Continue Reading