To TAR or Not to TAR: Deciding When to Use TAR
Despite the fact that TAR can be a useful and effective tool, it may not be a good fit in every litigation or investigation.
August 19, 2015 at 02:04 PM
6 minute read
With all the recent focus, it is not surprising that parties to litigation are including technology assisted review (TAR) provisions in protocols governing the production of electronically stored information (ESI). Parties are beginning to allow for at least the possibility of using TAR, even if only to supplement a traditional linear review. These protocols vary in detail, and some require the parties to collaborate together to develop the TAR process. As this technology's reliability improves, litigants and courts may become more comfortable allowing TAR to have a larger role in identifying responsive documents in litigation.
TAR is a relatively recent development in the legal software industry that is used to prioritize or code documents based on seed sets coded by humans by extrapolating the human judgments to the remaining document collection using sophisticated algorithms or systematic rules. TAR can be used for culling documents or can be used in combination with search terms for prioritizing review. TAR can be used to respond to requests for production in litigation, or in response to government or internal investigations. Despite the fact that TAR can be a useful and effective tool, it may not be a good fit in every litigation or investigation. Practical concerns may weigh in favor of sticking with more traditional methods for culling and reviewing data. This article discusses in general terms some of those concerns, and provides some thoughts to consider when deciding whether to use TAR in your next litigation.
Type of Litigation: Since TAR tools are dependent on document text to identify similar concepts within a document population, it tends to not fare as well in matters that are image-, chart- or diagram-heavy as compared to litigation that is based primarily on more textual documents. Similarly, financial documents, such as spreadsheets or ledgers, also do not typically enhance the TAR process. Therefore, litigation relying on these types of documents (e.g., patent litigation) may not be the best candidates for TAR.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250