Insights Articles

Every week, the Array team reviews the latest news and analysis about the evolving field of eDiscovery to bring you the topics and trends you need to know. This week’s post covers the period of June 1-7. Here’s what’s happening.

On eDiscovery Today, Doug Austin writes about a Tennessee court in In re Realpage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation that stepped in to enforce a stipulated TAR protocol—singling out defendant Sares Regis for failing to conduct a proper responsiveness review and ordering compliance within 12 days.

What happened?

On March 7, 2025, the court ordered Sares Regis to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s RFPs by March 28, 2025 using the August 30, 2024 search terms. But after missing the deadline and a one-month extended deadline, Sares Regis proposed three shortcuts to the plaintiffs. Sares Regis would:

• Produce more than 6 million documents that hit on a different set of search terms, the TAR search terms;
• Produce the more than 3 million documents that hit on the August 30 search terms; or
• Produce documents that the TAR model has determined are likely responsive while sampling the remaining documents to confirm they are nonresponsive.

Plaintiffs objected, arguing those proposals bypassed responsiveness review as set out in the agreed-upon TAR protocol and improperly shifted the burden to them. Magistrate Judge Crenshaw agreed—emphasizing under Rule 34 that Sares Regis bears responsibility to review and produce responsive documents, not the plaintiffs.

The court’s order

Judge Crenshaw ruled in a May 28, 2025 filing that Sares Regis must:

• Continue reviewing documents as per the agreed‑upon TAR protocol.
• Conduct a responsiveness review—not merely dump search-term hits on the plaintiffs.
• Complete all review and production by June 9, 2025 — just 12 days later.

Notably, the court gave the defendants discretion on how they were to meet this deadline by declining to compel additional review attorneys, but warned that noncompliance could bring sanctions.

Why it matters

• Protocol commitments are enforceable. Once you agree to a TAR protocol, the court expects you to honor it.
• Burden can’t be shifted midstream. Defendants can’t short‑circuit responsiveness review by changing workflows that would force plaintiffs to sort through unreviewed data.
• Deadlines need realistic planning. Extensions don’t grant free rein to deviate from methodology or avoid production obligations.

Takeaways for legal teams

• When negotiating TAR workflows, establish not just model thresholds, but also review responsibilities and fallback procedures.
• Build in internal checkpoints early to ensure deadlines—and associated resources—are realistic and adequate.
• Be cautious about departure from agreed processes and utilize meet-and-confer opportunities to discuss any setbacks with the opposing parties before needing to involve the court.

Other recent eDiscovery news and headlines:

• Legal Departments Show Growing AI Adoption But Implementation Challenges Remain, New Survey Finds (LawSites)
• Non-Party Law Firm Ordered to Provide Defaulting Client’s Affidavit to Support Claim of Client’s Privilege (EDRM Blog)

Julia Helmer; Director, Client Solutions

With 15 years of expertise, Julia excels at optimizing enterprise eDiscovery workflows from start to finish. With a deep understanding of how to seamlessly integrate workflows across various eDiscovery platforms, Julia creates tailored solutions for data identification, legal holds, ESI collections, and productions. By harnessing the power of Technology Assisted Review and Analytics, she delivers efficient, cost-effective results that align with best practices and budgetary constraints. Julia’s exceptional communication and customer service skills have fostered strong, lasting relationships with both clients and Project Management teams, enabling her to effectively problem-solve and drive success across numerous projects.