Extract from Philip Favro’s article “New TAR Case Affirms Sedona Principle Six, Approves Search Term Pre-Culling”
A new technology-assisted review (TAR) case—Livingston v. City of Chicago—provides instructive guidance on any number of key issues surrounding the use of TAR. From affirming the notion of Sedona Principle Six and approving the use of search terms to pre-cull a data set to emphasizing the importance of not holding TAR to a higher standard than other search and review methods, Livingston provides additional clarity on issues sometimes clouded by conflicting TAR case law.
The Initial Dispute Over Collection and Identification
In Livingston, the parties had been at an impasse for well over a year regarding the methods that defendant, the City of Chicago (City), should use to identify and search for emails responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Plaintiffs had sought the production of relevant emails from the City in an effort to substantiate their claim that the Chicago Fire Department discriminated against women who applied for positions within the Department’s paramedic division.
