Recent Court Decision Highlights Need for TAR Definition
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Posted by: Deja Miller
Extract from Tom O’Connor's article "Recent Court Decision Highlights Need for TAR Definition"
The eDiscovery world has been atwitter over the decision in FCA US, LLC v. Cummins, Inc., No. 16-12883 (E.D. Mich., Mar. 28, 2017) in which Michigan District Judge Avern Cohn held, “rather reluctantly,” that “[a]pplying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces the universe of electronic material is the preferred method.”
While there may have been a more detailed explanation in the decision’s arguments and pleadings, the resultant commentary focuses on the need for a more precise definition of what is actually meant by the broad term of TAR (Technology Assisted Review).
The Need to Define TAR
For example, consider the words of Maura Grossman, the aptly dubbed Queen of Search, in a recent interview with Artificial Lawyer. Maura commented, “It is difficult to know how often TAR is used given the confusion over what ‘TAR’ is (and is not), and inconsistencies in the results of published surveys.”
eDiscovery guru Ralph Losey covered this same point in a recent blog saying, “The passive type of machine learning that some vendors use under the name Analytics is NOT the same thing as Predictive Coding. These passive Analytics have been around for years and are far less powerful than active machine learning.”
Read the full article here