Bringing it Full Circle in Rio Tinto, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 10
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 this Part, we review Judge Peck’s second prominent TAR case.
The next prominent TAR case for us to review is Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale, S.A., et al. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015), which brings us back full circle to our beginning with another decision from Magistrate Judge Peck. This is another case in which the parties reached an agreement about the use of TAR, but the Magistrate Judge’s order accepting their agreement still provides an excellent summary of the state of TAR acceptance as of spring 2015, after the first three years of cases.
