Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Important S.D.N.Y. Ruling on Ordering the Use of TAR
August 17, 2016
This month, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck of the S.D.N.Y. issued an important decision on the use of Technology Assisted Review, or predictive coding. In Hyles v. New York City, 10 Civ. 3119 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Peck denied the plaintiff's application to force the defendant to use TAR even though he acknowledged that, "TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching". As previously noted on this blog, Judge Peck issued Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, one of the first judicial decisions to approve the use of TAR. However in this recent decision, Judge Peck rules that Sedona Principle 6, which states that parties are best able to judge for themselves which technologies are best for the preservation and production of ESI, should supersede the obvious advantages of TAR.
It should be noted that this is an employment discrimination suit. The Review was staged, beginning first with only 9 custodians, and then if necessary, only expanding to an additional 6. Presumably very large amounts of ESI are not involved.
Judge Peck closed his decision by noting that it's possible as TAR becomes more widely used, it will be unreasonable for a party to decline to use it in the electronic discovery process.