Home/News/Responding Party Controls TAR Strategy
Full original news can be read here >. Fair Use excerpt snippets below focus editor/member commentary and do not infringe on source Copyright.

New TAR Case Affirms Sedona Principle Six, Approves Search Term Pre-Culling

Author: Philip Favro - Driven

… City proposed using its “Microsoft Tool” to search for and identify responsive emails. Plaintiffs disagreed with this approach and suggested that the City instead engage an e-discovery vendor…
…City identified Relativity’s “Active Learning” tool as its designated TAR technology and indicated it would run TAR now that it had used plaintiffs’ search terms…

Open Source Link >

Editor Comment:

Normally I dig through the actual ruling language for new eDiscovery caselaw. In this case my former Symantec alumni has written a great summary of the contested discovery protocols. I refrained from quoting his closing four take-aways, but they are worth a read. What caught my interest here was the defendant’s original strategy to use its “Microsoft Tool” (I bet O365 Advanced eDiscovery) to run searches in place and review emails. I would love to know what argument pushed the court to force the City to use hosted Relativity to process the 1.5 million email instead of relying on O365 to run the plaintiff search terms for the 192,000 email that were reviewed via Relativity Active Learning. With over 70 percent of the Fortune 500 already on the O365 bandwagon, I am seeing legal departments push to do more ‘discovery in place’ with Microsoft before migrating rich collections to Relativity or competitor platforms for counsel to review. That brings me back to my ‘Trust but Verify’ principle. Would you use O365 eDiscovery to run search terms on your held ESI?

0 0 votes
Article Rating