Changing Horses Midstream in Progressive and Bridgestone, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 8
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 this Part, we review the Progressive and Bridgestone cases.
We turn our attention next to two contemporaneous cases that both concerned attempts to switch from a more traditional approach to a TAR approach part way through a discovery effort and that both considered whether TAR should be applied after search terms have already been used. Those cases are Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Delaney (D. Nev. Jul. 18, 2014) and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 22, 2014). In each case, a discovery plan had been agreed upon by the parties and that plan had been memorialized in a case management order prior to the attempt to change approaches.
