Use of Technology Assisted Review discharges a party’s discovery obligations

Discovery - application concerns a novel but inevitable discovery issue in this jurisdiction involving electronic documentary evidence - plaintiffs seeking the court’s approval for the use of a process known as Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) which combines predictive coding (a technology which produces a relevance score for documents using algorithms) with human expertise - plaintiffs claim that TAR will save time and be more cost effective compared to the traditional manual/linear method of discovery - in the proceedings, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants conspired to wrongfully convert assets to the value of €455 million, the property of the former Anglo Irish Bank – defendants object to use of TAR – they argue, inter alia, that TAR will not capture all relevant documents and therefore is not compatible with the obligations of a party making discovery, which is the objective target of 100 per cent of relevant documents -Rules of the Superior Courts do not require that a manual review be carried out in the discovery process - evidence establishes, that in discovery of large data sets, technology assisted review using predictive coding is at least as accurate as, and, probably more accurate than, the manual or linear method in identifying relevant documents - using TAR will still allow for a more expeditious and economical discovery process - balance must be struck between the right of the party making discovery to determine the manner in which discovery is provided and participation by the requesting party in ensuring that the methodology chosen is transparent and reliable – court satisfied that, provided the process has sufficient transparency, Technology Assisted Review using predictive coding discharges a party’s discovery obligations under Order 31, rule.12. - satisfied in the circumstances of this case that, subject to one amendment, the Protocol “contains standards for measuring the reliability of the process and builds in appropriate levels of participation by the Defendants” – plaintiff’s proposed protocol approved subject to one amendment.