Digital White Papers

TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED REVIEW 2.0 Peck held that TAR "is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review." Up until this opinion was issued, no court had ruled on the use of TAR in a matter. Magistrate Judge Peck also emphasized the importance of using an appropriate process when deploying TAR: The court in this case issued a detailed case management order that supported the use of TAR and set forth specific requirements for establishing an initial sampling set, training the TAR algorithm and setting a responsiveness threshold. Scheindlin opined TAR techniques are more accurate than keyword searching. "Simple keyword searching is often not enough... parties can (and frequently should) rely on latent "As with keywords or any other technological solution to e-discovery, counsel must design an appropriate process, including the use of available technology with appropriate quality control testing, to review and produce relevant ESI." Other notable judicial opinions involving technologyassisted review issued since Da Silva Moore include: •Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation, No. CL 61040 (Vir. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012): In April 2012, this Virginia Circuit Court ordered that defendants could use predictive coding despite the plaintiff's objections it wouldn't be as effective as manual review. The court ordered TAR be used and stated the receiving party would have an opportunity to question the completeness of the production at a later date. •Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, No. 6:11-md-2299 (W.D. La. July 27, 2012): •EORHB, Inc., et al v. HOA Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012): In this case, neither party had considered using technologyassisted review, but the court ordered both parties to do so or show cause why they should not. Further, the judge encouraged both parties to use a single discovery vendor. •National Day Laborer Organizing Network et al. v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97863 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2012) (Hon. Shira Scheindlin): Judge semantic indexing, statistical probability models, and machine learning tools to find responsive documents...these methods (known as 'computerassisted' or 'predictive' coding) allow humans to teach computers what documents are and are not responsive...and they can significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of searches." •Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 3:12-md-2391-RLM-CAN (N.D.Ind. April 18, 2013): In this case, the plaintiffs objected to Biomet's application of TAR, which

• Cover