News & Press: Affiliates in the News

Addressing Process Adequacy and Transparency in Winfield, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 12

Thursday, September 13, 2018   (0 Comments)
Share |

Addressing Process Adequacy and Transparency in Winfield, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 12

Seven years after it first rose to prominence in eDiscovery, technology-assisted review remains an important, and at times controversial, tool in the eDiscovery practitioner’s toolkit

by Matthew Verga, JD, Xact Data Discovery

 

In “Still Crazy after All These Years,” we discussed the slow but steady growth in the importance of TAR.  In “In the Beginning Was da Silva Moore,” we discussed the first case to address TAR.  In “Questions of Choice in Kleen Products,” we discussed an attempt to force the use of TAR, and in “Reported Results in Global Aerospace,” we discussed the first instance of reported TAR results.  In “A Negotiated Protocol in In Re: Actos,” we discussed a successfully negotiated TAR protocol.  In “At a Judge’s Direction in EORHB,” we discussed a Judge ordering TAR use unprompted.  In “Debating Process and Transparency in Biomet,” we discussed questions of process and transparency.  In “Changing Horses Midstream in Progressive and Bridgestone,” we discussed trying to switch to a TAR approach after agreeing to a traditional one.  In “Seeking Approval and Perfection in Dynamo,” we reviewed the questions of whether to seek prior approval and how good is good enough.  In “Bringing it Full Circle in Rio Tinto,” we discussed Judge Peck’s second prominent TAR case, and in “Trying to Compel TAR Use in Hyles,” we discussed his third and final.  In this Part, we review last year’s Winfield case for its analysis of process adequacy and required transparency.

 

Read the full article here


What our customers say?

©2018 Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists
All Rights Reserved