A new technology-assisted review (TAR) case—Livingston v. City of Chicago—provides instructive guidance on any number of key issues surrounding the use of TAR. From affirming the notion of Sedona Principle Six and approving the use of search terms to pre-cull a data set to emphasizing the importance of not holding TAR to a higher standard than other search and review methods, Livingston provides additional clarity on issues sometimes clouded by conflicting TAR case law.

|

The Initial Dispute Over Collection and Identification

In Livingston, the parties had been at an impasse for well over a year regarding the methods that defendant, the City of Chicago (City), should use to identify and search for emails responsive to plaintiffs' discovery requests. Plaintiffs had sought the production of relevant emails from the City in an effort to substantiate their claim that the Chicago Fire Department discriminated against women who applied for positions within the Department's paramedic division.

In response to plaintiffs' discovery, the City proposed using its "Microsoft Tool" to search for and identify responsive emails. Plaintiffs disagreed with this approach and suggested that the City instead engage an e-discovery vendor to export all potentially relevant emails. Plaintiffs insisted that the City run search terms against the collected universe of documents and then produce the search hits without performing a relevance or privilege review. When the City refused to accede to these demands, plaintiffs sought relief from the court.