Case Law

Court Will Not Force Responding Party to Use TAR; Judge Peck Authors another Key Predictive Coding Opinion

New York

Hyles v. New York City, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100390 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016) In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff moved to compel the defendants to utilize Technology Assisted Review (TAR) when searching for documents. The plaintiff argued that using TAR would be more cost effective, and accurate, than standard keyword searches. The defendants argued that they did not wish to utilize TAR, because the parties failed to collaborate well in the past, and they “would not be able to collaborate to develop the seed set for a TAR process.” Ediscovery aficionado, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, presided over the discovery dispute and evaluated both parties’ claims. In response to the plaintiff’s argument that the use of TAR would be the most efficient and cost effective, Judge Peck agreed, and stated that “To be clear, the Court believes that for most cases today, TAR is the best and most efficient search tool…[t]he Court would have liked the City to use TAR in this case.” However, citing Sedona Conference Principle 6, Judge Peck held that “the responding party is best situated to decide how to search for and produce ESI responsive to [plaintiff’s] document request.” Judge Peck noted that someday, the law may be at the point where “it might be unreasonable for a party to decline to use TAR…[but,] [w]e are not there yet.”

Keywords: Discovery, ESI, TAR, Keywords, Searching, Methodology, Predictive Coding