[brief] I.  Methodology to Identify Responsive Documents  The parties disagree as to the methodology Defendants should use to identify responsive documents.  Plaintiffs propose that the Defendants use predictive coding or technology assisted review (“TAR”), in which human reviewers and a computer engage in an interactive process to “train” the computer how to identify responsive documents based on properties and characteristics beyond simple search terms.  Plaintiffs assert that this type of computer-assisted coding process yields significantly better results than either traditional human “eyes on” review of the full data set or the use of search terms.  Plaintiffs argue that if the Court declines to compel Defendants to adopt TAR, the Court should enter its proposed Search Term Protocol.  Defendants argue that there is no authority for imposing TAR on an objecting party.  Defendants further argue that this case presents a number of unique issues that would make developing an appropriate and effective seed set challenging, such as language and translation issues, unique acronyms and identifiers, redacted documents, and technical documents.  Defendants thus contend they should be permitted to utilize their preferred custodian-and-search term approach.  While “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” Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), no court has ordered a party to engage in TAR over the objection of that party.  The few courts that have considered this issue have all declined to compel predictive coding.  See, e.g., City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., 326 F.R.D. 489, 493, 101 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 622 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (discussing the advantages of TAR but deferring to the parties’ choice to use search terms); Hyles v. New York City, 2016 WL 4077114, *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (refusing to order a party to use TAR and stating that a party is free to decide how to search so long as its process is reasonable); Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125, 127 & n.2 (S.D. N.Y. 2015).  Despite the fact that it is widely recognized that “TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching” Hyles v. New York City, No. 10-CIV-3119, 2016 WL 4077114, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016), courts also recognize that responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for producing their own electronically stored information.  Ibid. at *3 (citing The Sedona Principles: Second Edition, Best Practices Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production, Principle 6 (available at www.TheSedonaConference.org)).  Here, Defendants object to the use of TAR, instead indicating they prefer to use the custodian-and-search term approach, which they assert is fair, efficient, and well-established.  While the Special Master believes TAR would likely be a more cost effective and efficient methodology for identifying responsive documents, Defendants may evaluate and decide for themselves the appropriate technology for producing their ESI.  Therefore, the Special Master will not order Defendants to utilize TAR at this time.  However, Defendants are cautioned that the Special Master will not look favorably on any future arguments related to burden of discovery requests, specifically cost and proportionality, when Defendants have chosen to utilize the custodian-and-search term approach despite wide acceptance that TAR is cheaper, more efficient and superior to keyword searching.