Is mandatory technology-assisted review on the horizon? This was question that Tom Gricks and John Pappas posed in a recent Bloomberg article.
Cost continues to be the primary issue lying at the heart of e-discovery disputes, particularly with the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), specifically Rule 26, mandating that the scope of discovery in litigation be proportional to the value and needs of the case. Judges are increasingly being called upon to resolve these disputes and explicitly consider the fact that the cost and efficiency of different review techniques and technologies can still vary widely.
What is the interplay between the FRCP proportionality mandate and different review techniques and technology– including linear review, keyword search, TAR 1.0, and TAR 2.0? And how does the Sedona Conference Proportionality Commentary, Principle 6 (“technologies to reduce cost and burden should be considered in the proportionality analysis”) fit into this question as courts continue to delve more deeply into cost versus efficiency considerations?