Technology Assisted Review – Electronic Discovery Law

e-DAT Practice Group Partner and Solutions Analyst to Attend ILTACON Annual Conference 2023

Aug 17 2023

Rachel Tausend, a partner of the K&L Gates e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) Group and the firm’s Seattle office, and Krysta Slavik, an e-DAT Group Solutions Analyst based in Pittsburgh, will attend the ILTACON Annual Conference 2023, which begins this Sunday.. Both Rachel and Krysta will participate in panel discussions at the conference, which features a wealth of programs, educational content, and networking opportunities for the legal leaders, managers, professionals, and technologists in attendance.

e-DAT Practice Group Partner to Attend Upcoming ABA Program and Master’s Conference in Europe on E-Discovery and Data Privacy

Jul 17 2023

Daniel Miller, a partner of the K&L Gates e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) Group and the firm’s Pittsburgh office, will attend this week’s ABA Cross-Border Institute in Paris. Daniel will also participate on a panel discussion at next week’s Master’s Conference in London.

e-DAT Practice Group Partner to Attend EDRM Detroit Symposium 2023

May 31 2023

Daniel Miller, a partner of the K&L Gates e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) Group and the firm’s Pittsburgh office, will attend this week’s EDRM Detroit Symposium 2023. Both Daniel and Krysta Slavik, an e-DAT Group Solutions Analyst based in Pittsburgh, are participating in committees for the “EDRM 2.0” initiative, which focuses on how e-discovery will evolve and adapt in light of advancements in artificial intelligence. The EDRM Detroit Symposium 2023 will feature meetings related to this new initiative, presentations about trends in electronic discovery, and a panel discussion on e-discovery missteps.

Top Three Trends Discussed at 2023 Legalweek

Mar 24 2023

K&L Gates participated in this week’s 2023 Legalweek in New York City. As members of our firm’s e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) Group attended panel discussions regarding emerging legal issues and met with vendors regarding evolving legal technologies, they noted three trends that were being discussed by everyone at the conference.

LexisNexis Practice Note – “E-discovery: Planning for and Conducting E-discovery (WA)”

Dec 23 2022

Focusing on procedural rules and case law particular to Washington, Julie Anne Halter (Partner and e-DAT Practice Group Co-Chair) and Bree Kelly (e-DAT Senior Staff Lawyer) provide practical guidance for the state’s legal practitioners on each step of the e-discovery process in their recent LexisNexis Practice Note.

In re Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation (W.D. Penn. 2022)

Jan 07 2022

Key Insight: This multidistrict litigation involves allegations that the defendants conspired to reduce supply and increase prices for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (“MDI”) and toluene diisocyanate (“TDI”), chemicals used in the manufacture of polyurethane foam and thermoplastic polyurethanes. The parties filed competing motions to compel regarding the use TAR and search terms. Plaintiffs moved to compel an order requiring the defendants to use plaintiff’s proposed search terms, or alternatively, to establish a process by which disputed search terms could be adjudicated. The E-Discovery Special Master made a recommendation to deny the motions and directed the parties to his prior report and recommendation on the parties’ TAR protocols to address concerns he raised their regarding the parties’ methodologies.

Nature of Case: Antitrust MDL

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Case Summary

Huntsman v. Southwest Airlines Co. (N.D. Cal. 2021)

Aug 10 2021

Key Insight: The parties sought clarification on the scope of plaintiff’s discovery seeking documents relating to Southwest’s practices for verifying military leave. Defendant objected to the discovery requests on the basis of relevance, scope and proportionality, but agreed to conduct a phased search of its custodians’ data for responsive documents. The court agreed with defendant that the requests as written were overbroad given that the certified class was focused on an alleged failure to pay for short-term leave and plaintiff was not entitled to all potential USERRA violations. “Southwest’s approach to using keyword searches and technology-assisted review in tandem does not offend the court’s expectation that the parties conduct a reasonable inquiry as required by the rules.”

Nature of Case: Class action under USERRA

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

In re Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Prods. Liab. Litig. (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 2020)

Dec 02 2020

Key Insight: Defendants violated the Court ordered ESI protocol when it unilaterally adopted a CAL platform without input from Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to timely disclose their intentions to use TAR and collaborate in good faith with Plaintiffs on the TAR platform to be used prior to implementation. Due to the cost and time required for a manual review, the Court permitted Defendants to do a TAR review of its non-responsive documents using the protocol previously negotiated but not finalized by the parties.

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. (D. Kan. June 18, 2020)

Jun 18 2020

Key Insight: Cost shifting of the TAR costs to Plaintiff was warranted based on an analysis of the proportionality factors. Plaintiff was warned to narrow his discovery multiple times, continued to demand overbroad criteria for TAR, was aware of the potential costs of TAR, and was aware the discovery he sought led to largely non-responsive documents. Moreover, Defendant produced responsive documents by conducting its own search and production of documents outside of the TAR process.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract, Non-Compete

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation (D. N.J. 2020)

Jan 08 2020

Key Insight: Although TAR is widely recognized as “cheaper, more efficient, and superior to keyword searching,” the responding party may decide for themselves the best method for producing their ESI. The court will not compel the utilization of TAR but may revisit the issue if Plaintiff contends the actual production is deficient.

Nature of Case: Environmental, Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

Tag:Technology Assisted Review