Debating Process and Transparency in Biomet, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 7

Xact Data Discovery Logo
Debating Process and Transparency in Biomet, Technology-Assisted Review Series Part 7 

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 this Part, we review the process and transparency debates in Biomet.

The next prominent TAR case was In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Ind. Aug.21, 2013), which was consolidated multidistrict product liability litigation.  The litigation was eventually settled, but not before substantial discovery work was done and two orders concerning the use of TAR were issued.

Read the full article here