While entering a TAR protocol may help promote cooperation between sides, it is not required. A party has the right to use TAR unilaterally without approval from the court or their opposition.
The primary e-discovery dispute in this case centers around creating an agreement around the use of technology-assisted review.
After months of unproductive negotiations, the plaintiff decided to use TAR without an agreement with the defendant on how TAR would be used. Subsequently, the defendant raised concerns about the plaintiff’s TAR process and filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to reveal “the complete methodology and results” of their process.
Download the PDF version of Entrata v. Yardi Systems case law alert here.
Goldilocks applies to legal disputes. By waiting months to bring the TAR-related dispute to the Court (on the eve of the fact discovery cutoff), the Court found that Yardi waited too long. Moreover, although not cited by the Court, this also was an example of Sedona Principle #7: the movant needs to show a deficiency in the production to get relief. Finally, it is another opinion supporting the producing party’s right to use TAR.