Controlling the costs of eDiscovery can be challenging when working on a legal matter. Not only do legal professionals need to recognize new and emerging data and file types, but they also have to contend with situations where opposing counsel choose to leverage discovery as a means to slow progress in a matter and increase its overall cost.

In response to these and other pressing pain points, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) received a much-needed update in December 2015. However, while some of the increased costs associated with eDiscovery can be attributed to data types and superfluous discovery requests, they can also be attributed to the lack of a concrete definition for technology-assisted review (TAR) and predictive coding.

John William Speros, an attorney consulting in evidence management with Speros & Associates, contends just that in his article, “Despite Early Success, TAR’s Growth Is Limited by Its Lack of Definition,” featured on Legaltech News.

Speros explains that TAR and predictive coding “ameliorate a problem that denigrates civil litigation: extortion by discovery when discovery costs ‘force settlements for reasons and on terms that related more to the costs of discovery than to the merits of the case.’”

In a call-to-arms fashion, Speros concludes that it is necessary for the technology to “consolidate definitions about what it is, its capabilities and its limitations, and [to specify] any underlying science and all necessary protocols.”

Ultimately, it is only after the definition has been clarified that legal personnel can adroitly apply TAR and predictive coding to fully take advantage of potential cost savings.

Want to learn more about what Speros has to say about TAR and predictive coding? Click here to register for the Fifth Annual ASU–Arkfeld eDiscovery and Digital Evidence Conference, and click here to read Speros’s article in its entirety.

Get Updates to Your Inbox

Subscribe to The Chronicle