Back in February, The Sedona Conference® (TSC) published its TAR Case Law Primer, Second Edition for public comment. Now, the final TAR Case Law Primer has been published.
TSC and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production (WG1) announced yesterday that the final TAR Case Law Primer, Second Edition has been published.
The Primer, available here for free download, addresses the evolving case law issues related to technology-assisted review that have arisen since publication of the First Edition in January 2017. These evolving, more complex issues include TAR methodologies, metrics, and validation. The Second Edition also discusses how the technological shift from TAR 1.0 systems to TAR 2.0 (continuous active learning) has impacted the case law.
Like the First Edition, the Primer does not recommend best practices or otherwise comment on the utility of TAR. It is intended to assist courts and practitioners in staying abreast of this evolving area of law and technology.
The Sedona Conference TAR Case Law Primer, Second Edition was posted for public comment in February. The editors carefully considered the comments that were submitted and, where appropriate, incorporated them into this final version. A lot of those comments must have been additional cases. The 92-page Primer discusses a whopping (by my count) 85 cases related to TAR, which is 15 more than the public comment version!
Hat tip to Judge Peck for giving me the heads up on the final TAR Case Law Primer release. 🙂
Related Posts
TAR Case Law Primer, from The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices
Metrics Used by Defendant to Object to Search Terms: eDiscovery Case Law
Request to Use TAR Denied by Special Master: eDiscovery Case Law
Special Master Recommends that Defendants Ordered to Resume TAR Process: eDiscovery Case Law
The Da Silva Moore Case Ten Years Later: eDiscovery Case Law
So, what do you think? Are you using TAR regularly in your cases? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, 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.