Evaluating TAR: Can We Trust Technology?
Using TAR to review potentially privileged material.
October 06, 2015 at 05:29 AM
5 minute read
When a large-scale litigation or investigation begins at your company, managing the collection of electronic information becomes an issue of both strategic legal importance and cost management. Increasingly, technology assisted review (“TAR”) – also referred to as predictive coding or computer-assisted review – provides the best way to work strategically and efficiently in the gathering, reviewing, and production of relevant electronic data. Recent judicial decisions reveal that resistance to the use of TAR in litigation is vanishing. See, e.g., Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (noting that “the case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it”); Dynamo Holdings Ltd. P'ship v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Nos. 2685-11, 8393-12, 143 T.C. 183, 192 (T.C. 2014) (recognizing that “predictive coding [is] widely accepted for limiting e-discovery to relevant documents and effecting discovery of ESI without an undue burden”). One area of concern, however, lies with the identification and withholding of privileged information.
Should You Use TAR for Privilege Review?
Deciding whether to manage a privilege review of potentially relevant electronic documents via TAR, as opposed to manual attorney review, requires consideration of several factors. First, the complexity of the privilege designations informs the decision. If a matter involves multiple layers of privilege across relevant material that cannot be flagged by attorney name or time periods, a manual review may be necessary. Second, the sensitivity of the potentially privileged communications should be considered. There may be categories of privileged information that a company maintains must not be inadvertently produced. If so, that category should be identified, separated, and subject to attorney review. Third, always remember that volume matters. The more potentially privileged documents involved, the more time and money will be saved through the use of TAR. If the volume is high, then TAR should be considered to cull down the documents, even if certain categories are held back for manual review.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: With KPMG's Proposed Entry, Arizona's Liberalized Legal Market is Getting Interesting
- 2Womble Bond Dickinson Adds New Leaders as Merger Is Completed
- 3Family's Disability Discrimination Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Six Flags
- 4Turning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
- 5Appellate Division Rejects Third Circuit Interpretation of NJ Law, Says No Arbitration for Insurance Fraud
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