Tag: TAR

1
In re Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation (W.D. Penn. 2022)
2
Huntsman v. Southwest Airlines Co. (N.D. Cal. 2021)
3
In re Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Prods. Liab. Litig. (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 2020)
4
Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. (D. Kan. June 18, 2020)

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

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)

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)

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

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.