The first part of this two-part article on TAR covered why you should use it, what it is and some basics of how it works. This second part will cover some of the TAR case law, how to use TAR for more than simply determining whether documents are relevant and some best practice considerations for using TAR.

The judiciary first proclaimed TAR acceptable in 2012, in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Since then, there have been many judicial decisions regarding TAR. Several courts have made their thoughts on its capabilities clear, stating: “Predictive coding or TAR has emerged as a far more accurate means of producing responsive ESI in discovery than manual human review of keyword searches.” Youngevity International, Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-cv-00704-BTM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60907, at *38 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2019) (citation omitted); and it “is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it.” Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Sys., No. 2:15-cv-00102, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185744, at *20 (D. Utah Oct. 29, 2018) (citation omitted).

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]