Explore

Predictive Coding

Changing Horses Midstream in Progressive and Bridgestone, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 8

We turn our attention next to two cases that both concerned attempts to switch from a traditional approach to a TAR approach midstream and that considered whether TAR should be applied after search terms have already been used. Those cases are Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Delaney (D. Nev. Jul. 18, 2014) and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 22, 2014).

Read More

Debating Process and Transparency in Biomet, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 7

The next prominent TAR case was In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Ind. Aug.21, 2013), which was consolidated multidistrict product liability litigation.  The litigation was eventually settled, but not before substantial discovery work was done and two orders concerning the use of TAR were issued.

Read More

At a Judge’s Direction in EORHB, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 6

The next newsworthy TAR case was EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings LLC (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012), which was “a complex multimillion dollar commercial indemnity dispute” before the Delaware Court of Chancery, the oldest business court and one of the most respected business courts in the country. In October 2012, in a hearing in this case, the Judge brought up the subject of technology-assisted review on his own and directed the parties to use it.

Read More

A Negotiated Protocol in In Re: Actos, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 5

The next significant TAR case was In Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation (W.D. La. Jul. 27, 2012), which provided the first on-the-record example of a TAR protocol successfully and cooperatively negotiated by the parties. It provided for testing of suitability before the full effort, plans for transparency and cooperation throughout the effort, and validation steps to measure the success of the effort.

Read More

Reported Results in Global Aerospace, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 4

The next significant technology-assisted review decision came from a state court in Virginia and included both the first results reported on the record and the first instance in which use of TAR was judicially approved over the objections of the requesting parties. Global Aerospace Inc. v. Landow Aviation, L.P. (Loudoun County, Va. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012) concerned the collapse of three airplane hangars and the resulting destruction of fourteen private jets.

Read More

Questions of Choice in Kleen Products, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 3

The next major TAR case after da Silva Moore was Kleen Products LLC, et al., v. Packaging Corporation of America, et al. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2012), which was significant for its analysis of the method selection question and for its very educational hearing transcripts, which include extensive discussion of Boolean searching, technology-assisted review, and validation methodologies.

Read More

In the Beginning Was da Silva Moore, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 2

The year after technology-assisted review first rose to prominence in eDiscovery, Monique da Silva Moore, et al., v. Publicis Groupe SA & MSL Group (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012) became the first case in which the use of TAR was judicially approved, and Magistrate Judge Peck’s order approving its use in that case included topical education and legal analysis that was very impactful during TAR’s rise.

Read More

Still Crazy after All These Years, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 1

Technology-assisted review (“TAR”) first rose to prominence in the legal industry around 2011 under the name predictive coding. Although growth has remained slower than expected, signs of TAR’s continued growth and importance abound, and case law continues to accumulate. From 2012’s da Silva Moore, to 2017’s Winfield and beyond, this series will survey the case law in this area to provide you with the available guidance from the courts.

Read More

Xact Data Discovery Offering More Ways to Adopt Relativity

July 21, 2015 – XDD among vendors hosting Relativity with enhanced administrative options for end users

Read More

What’s New in Relativity 9.1

Relativity 9.1 includes some key new features. This blog post from Carl Chivers shares what you need to know!

Read More

Time for Small and Midsize Firms to Win Big Clients and Big Cases

With e-discovery tools becoming increasingly affordable, smaller firms have access to the same technologies employed by large law firms ‒ or sometimes even better ones. Small and midsize firms are better positioned to compete for large clients than ever before.

Read More

Combating Big Data with Cost-Effective TAR

Why use Technology Assisted Review (TAR)? Saving review costs is a big reason, but improved resource management is a key benefit.

Read More

Whether you prefer email, text or carrier pigeons, we’re always available.

Discovery starts with listening.

(877) 545-XACT / or / Complete Contact Form