Plaintiffs firm wins motion to extend after Casepoint audit finds 16.7% precision in defense's 3.5M-document production

In litigation involving major commercial airlines, the defendant produced 3.5 million documents under a court deadline using Technology Assisted Review (TAR). The defense TAR Control Set estimated the production would contain 85% of all responsive documents at a 58% precision rate (at least one responsive document for every non-responsive document, or 1:1). Because of the volume, plaintiffs decided to reanalyze the production in the middle of the case.

Mid-case, the leading plaintiffs co-counsel reanalyzed the defense production in Casepoint’s legal discovery platform using CaseAssist active learning and advanced analytics. They took a Validation Sample and applied TAR 2.0 features to audit the data and compare Casepoint’s findings against the defendant’s original TAR 1.0 Control Set estimates.

Casepoint's case study says the audit found the initial production actually contained over 97% of all responsive documents, but precision was only 16.7%. It states that this changed the responsive document review ratio from 1:1 to 4:1 and gave plaintiffs reason to claim an overproduction. Casepoint says its AI and advanced analytics reduced the 3.5 million produced documents to 600,000 responsive documents. The defendants' attorneys confirmed an error in their control set estimates, and the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to extend.

• Plaintiffs used Casepoint's built-in TAR 2.0 / active learning features to test the defense's production estimates mid-case
• Here, the gap between the defense's estimated 58% precision and the 16.7% found in the plaintiffs' validation sample supported an overproduction claim and a granted motion to extend
• Casepoint says the plaintiffs performed the audit swiftly; the page does not describe how the control set was built or the validation sample drawn