The Simplified
E-⁠Discovery Case Law Library
A collection of simple, easy to understand analyses and resources on e-⁠discovery case law.
Case shelved under Reasonableness

Court Rules Parties Can Use TAR without Court Authorization

Entrata v. Yardi Systems
D. Utah October 29, 2018
Why This Case Is Important

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.

Overview:

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.

Ruling:
  • Magistrate judge rejects defendant’s motion. Without providing any evidence of deficiencies in the plaintiff’s productions, the court would not compel plaintiff to produce information around their TAR process.
  • A failed second try. Subsequently, the defendant tried its luck with the district court, which was again rejected, since full transparency into another side’s TAR process is not required unless the parties agreed upon a ESI search protocol. In this case, they did not.
  • No court approval needed to use TAR. Though courts will permit the use of TAR as articulated in the Da Silva Moore ruling, they do not mandate that the party obtain authorization from the court to use TAR.
Download case law PDF

Download the PDF version of Entrata v. Yardi Systems case law alert here. 

Legal Analysis
On Entrata v. Yardi Systems
Hon. Andrew Peck (Ret.), Sr. Counsel, DLA Piper
BY
Hon. Andrew Peck (Ret.), Sr. Counsel, DLA Piper

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.

Judge Peck's Bio
relevant resource
What are the top 10 e-discovery case law rulings from 2018? Find out now!
White Paper
Top 10 E-Discovery Cases of 2018
Top 10 E-Discovery Cases of 2018
download now
return to case law library
Reasonableness room