Judge Won't Impose New E-Discovery Methods in Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation
The special master said technology-assisted review is likely to be efficient, cost-effective and superior to using a keyword search, but that Mercedes-Benz and Bosch are free to reach their own conclusions on the best method to use.
January 10, 2020 at 03:32 PM
4 minute read
A special master in the Mercedes-Benz emissions test class action has declined to compel the use of technology-assisted review to identify responsive documents.
In the suit claiming the defendants rigged vehicles to cheat on emissions tests, the plaintiffs sought to have Mercedes-Benz and co-defendant Robert Bosch identify responsive documents through an interactive process where human reviewers "train" a computer based on properties and characteristics beyond simple search terms.
Special Master Dennis Cavanaugh said on Thursday that technology-assisted review, or TAR, is likely to be efficient, cost-effective and superior to using a keyword search. But Mercedes-Benz and Bosch are free to reach their own conclusions about which method is best for producing their electronically stored information, and no court has ordered the use of TAR over a party's objections, Cavanaugh said.
"Despite the fact that it is widely recognized that 'TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching,' courts also recognize that responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies and technologies appropriate for producing their own electronically stored information," Cavanaugh wrote, citing Hyles v. New York City, a 2016 Southern District of New York ruling.
The plaintiffs claimed that TAR, also known as predictive coding, yields significantly better results than using search terms or a traditional "eyes on" review of the full data set. But Mercedes-Benz and Bosch countered that the case presents a series of unique issues that would make use of TAR challenging, such as language and translation issues, unique acronyms and identifiers, redacted documents and technical documents. Mercedes-Benz and Bosch contended that they should be permitted to use their preferred custodian-and-search-term approach.
Case law has held that a producing party that wishes to use TAR for document review may do so, but the small number of courts that have considered compelling a party to use TAR have declined to do so, Cavanaugh said.
Cavanaugh cautioned that he will "not look favorably" on future arguments related to the burden of discovery requests, especially cost and proportionality, when defendants have chosen to use the custodian-and-search method despite "wide acceptance that TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching." In addition, Cavanaugh noted that his denial of the plaintiffs' request to compel the use of TAR by Mercedes-Benz was issued without prejudice to revisiting the issue if plaintiffs complain that the defendants' actual production is deficient.
Cavanaugh also adopted 12 pages of rules governing the use of search terms to sort through electronically stored information in the case.
The first case in which a court sanctioned the use of such technology was in the Southern District of New York in 2012. In October 2018, an amendment to the Rules of the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court took effect encouraging parties to "use the most efficient means to review documents, including electronically stored information (ESI), that is consistent with the parties' disclosure obligations … and proportional to the needs of the case. Such means may include [TAR], including predictive coding, in appropriate cases."
Lawyers at Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello in Roseland, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle, representing the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for comment. Lawyers at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in New York, representing Bosch, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, representing Mercedes-Benz, also did not respond to requests for comment.
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 AllBankruptcy Judge Clears Path for Recovery in High-Profile Crypto Failure
3 minute readGibbons Reps Asylum Seekers in $6M Suit Over 2018 ‘Inhumane’ Immigration Policy
3 minute readNJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
4 minute readJudge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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