Source: https://www.larimer-law.com/articles/ediscovery-update
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:29:36+00:00

Document:
eDISCOVERY UPDATE: Should you be using TAR? Judge Peck recommends you do, but the choice is yours… for now.
I have a new case in federal court and I anticipate that both parties will need to sift through a high volume of electronically stored information (“ESI”) for potentially relevant documents. Opposing counsel wants the parties to take a traditional approach to the review of ESI, which involves negotiating a list of keywords and phrases related to the litigation, searching for these keywords and phrases across many thousands of electronically stored documents, and submitting the results to a large team of lawyers who will manually review each document to determine whether it is relevant. Given the high volume of documents, I am concerned that this traditional approach to document review will yield inaccurate results and will be very expensive. I have proposed to opposing counsel that both parties use some type of technology assisted review. I am convinced a technology assisted review will be a more efficient and accurate approach. However, my “esteemed colleague” is balking. Can I compel her to use technology assisted review? On the flipside, can she prevent me from using technology assisted review?
In short, while the use of Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) is permitted and often advisable, especially in cases with a large volume of electronically stored information, courts that have addressed the issue have held that you cannot yet force your opponent to use TAR. However, by the same token, assuming you have a sound process in place, your “esteemed colleague” cannot prevent you from using TAR, simply because she herself chooses not to use it.
In August of last year, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck from the Southern District of New York, an acknowledged trailblazer in the world of electronic discovery, firmly held in Hyles v. New York City that a producing party in the discovery phase of litigation cannot be compelled to use TAR. However, Judge Peck’s decision explicitly leaves the door open for a future where TAR becomes more than just a good idea and becomes mandatory. Given recent advances in technology and the acceptance of TAR by the courts, it seems entirely plausible that TAR will eventually become the most common, if not the default, way to conduct large volume document reviews.
In 2012, in what he later described as his “seminal” TAR case, Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, Judge Peck explicitly approved the use TAR and observed that “while some lawyers still consider manual review to be the ‘gold standard,’ that is a myth, as statistics clearly show that computerized searches are at least as accurate, if not more so, than manual review.” Three years later, in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., Judge Peck reaffirmed his approval of TAR, noting that “the caselaw 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.” Judge Peck also used Rio Tinto as an opportunity to de-mystify TAR and cast it as just another tool to manage electronic discovery that “[should not be held] to a higher standard than keywords or manual review.”  However, until Hyles v. New York City, it remained unclear whether a producing party who preferred to use keyword searching could instead be compelled to use TAR over its objections.
Judge Peck has answered this question with “a decisive ‘NO.’” In Hyles, the plaintiff, a New York City employee who asserted various discrimination and hostile work environment claims, sought to compel her former employer, the City of New York, to use TAR. New York objected, preferring instead to generate responsive documents using keyword searching, in part, perhaps, because it had a large, salaried staff that it could devote to the large document review project.
Interestingly, Judge Peck noted in his closing paragraph of Hyles that “[t]here may come a time when TAR is so widely used that it might be unreasonable for a party to decline to use TAR. We are not there yet.” Whether and when we arrive “there” remains to be seen. But for now, it seems safe to say that TAR is here to stay and is likely to become more widely used in the future. I agree with Judge Peck and, while you may not be able to compel your opponent to use TAR at this time, you should always consider whether it is appropriate to your case: a forward-thinking approach will serve you and your clients well as this technology gains broader acceptance. It is important to note that, if you do in fact choose to use TAR for your own case, a sound process is necessary to make sure your implementation and resulting document production is conducted in a defensible manner. This often involves a combination of TAR, manual review, and the structuring of quality control workflows to ensure that the scope of review is comprehensive and the results are validated. If you want to use TAR, and structure the process in the right way, Judge Peck’s decision sends a strong message to your opponent that she would have a difficult time preventing you from doing so, even if she herself chooses not to use it. Good luck!
 Hyles v. New York City, No. 10 CIV. 3119 AT AJP, 2016 WL 4077114 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016).
 Id., at *2 (describing Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Group as a “seminal…decision”).
 Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182, 191–93 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), adopted sub nom. Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 CIV. 1279 ALC AJP, 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012).
 Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125, 127-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (collecting cases approving use of TAR).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.