Technology Assisted Review

TAR Makes ESI Protocols Sticky

November 8, 2021 Josh Gilliland Predictive Coding, Technology Assisted Review

Magistrate Judge Virginia Demarchi issued an order over parties disagreeing about predictive coding and search in an ESI Protocol. The disagreement began with or not to include Sedona Principle No. 6 in the proposed protocol. For reference, that principle states: “Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies,[…]

Bliss is Using Technology Assisted Review without Court Permission

March 11, 2021 Josh Gilliland eDiscovery, Predictive Coding, Technology Assisted Review

There are lawyers who do not trust, do not understand, or do not want to learn how to use Technology Assisted Review (lovingly known as TAR), in discovery. TAR is a sticky definition, because TAR can be “predictive coding,” or “machine learning,” or “email threading,” or “clustering,” or any other[…]

Return to the TAR-Pit

March 4, 2015 Josh Gilliland e-Discovery, eDiscovery, Predictive Coding, Technology Assisted Review

Take note all, there is a new predictive coding case by Judge Andrew Peck. The good Judge waded into the TAR-pit of transparency, which in my opinion has caused much unnecessary problems with judges and parties who believe “transparency” is required when predictive coding is used, mandating the disclosure of[…]

How Not to Be Progressive: Court Rejects Predictive Coding Not Agreed to By Parties

May 22, 2014 Josh Gilliland Document Review, e-Discovery, Predictive Coding, Privilege Review, Technology Assisted Review

Fighting over discovery search methodology makes me think of President Richard Nixon’s resignation speech: “Always remember, there are those who hate you. And the only way to keep them from winning is to hate them right back. And then you destroy yourself.” Attacking a party who used predictive coding to[…]