Case Law

Court Orders an Aggressive Production Timeline, Citing Efficiencies of TAR

California

Rabin v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125404 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 08, 2017) In this case, the court reviewed a jointly filed discovery brief between parties. Both parties agreed to the ESI discovery process itself, including the use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR), but argued over the production timeline. The plaintiffs requested discovery to take place on a rolling basis from August to October 2017, which overlapped with the timeframe that the TAR model was being iteratively refined and checked for accuracy by the defendant. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that such a timeline was necessary in order to use ESI discovery in their conditional certification motion. The defendant objected, arguing that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the requested discovery prior to their conditional certification motion, and that the timeline set forth by the plaintiffs was unreasonable. The court found that the case law brought forth by both parties did not answer whether a party is entitled to ESI discovery prior to their conditional certification motion; however, the court disagreed with the defendant’s statement that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any ESI discovery to prepare their conditional certification motion. The court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to all discovery prior, but stated “…the Court sees no reason to prevent them from obtaining and using ESI discovery to support their motion.” In response to the defendant’s request for a more lenient timeline, the court held that in light of the parties being on the verge of a search term agreement, as well as the efficiencies of the TAR model, the timeline was aggressive but not unreasonable. The court ordered production to begin no later than September 1.

Keywords: Production Timeline, Conditional Certification Motion, TAR, Predictive Coding