In 2020, two new cases featured disputes about the use of technology-assisted review (TAR) approaches to e-discovery: one attempt to compel the use of a TAR approach (In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig. (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2020)) and one attempt to prevent the use of a TAR approach (Livingston v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. Sep. 3, 2020)). In each case, Sedona Principle 6 was cited favorably as embodying the correct approach to such disputes: producing parties are in the best position to pick their own methods. This continues a short line of cases, including Kleen Products (2011), Hyles (2016), and In re Viagra Prods. Liab. Litig. (2016), settling disputes related to the use of TAR approaches in this way.

Sedona Principle 6

Among the 14 principles set forth in The Sedona Principles, Third Edition: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production is Principle 6, which addresses the selection of e-discovery methodologies: "Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information." The commentary explains that this principle is:

… grounded in reason, common sense, procedural rules, and common law, and is premised on each party fulfilling its discovery obligations without direction from the court or opposing counsel, and eschewing "discovery on discovery," unless a specific deficiency is shown in a party's production.