Deciding on TAR

Deciding on TAR or No TAR for Second Requests: eDiscovery Trends

In addition to the five key Second Request considerations for success discussed last time, the latest post from Cimplifi discusses a sixth consideration: deciding on TAR or No TAR?

Their post (The Sixth HSR Second Request Consideration TAR Or No TAR?) discusses whether to consider using Technology Assisted Review (TAR) to assist with your HSR Second Request review.

The use of TAR for eDiscovery review has become a standard and accepted approach within the legal community and has been court-approved for over ten years as an acceptable approach for litigation document review. When it comes to deciding on TAR or no TAR, there are benefits to using TAR in HSR Second Request reviews, but there can also be challenges. Here’s one of the benefits:

eDiscovery Assistant

Speed: With HSR Second Requests having a much more compressed timeframe for response (compared to typical litigation timeframes), there is a need for speed in conducting the review. The machine learning aspect of TAR enables review to be conducted more quickly because it typically requires human review of only a fraction of the data set to train the algorithm to make responsiveness determinations. With the tight timelines of a Second Request production, using TAR to either decide or suggest which documents are responsive to the Second Request can be a game changer.

So, what are the other benefits? And what are the challenges? And how do they impact deciding on TAR or no TAR? Find out that and more here! And please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic. Don’t make the decision without expert advice!

Disclosure: Cimplifi is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the authors and speakers themselves, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

ProSearch

Leave a Reply