{"id":"AIBD-0990","title":"A federal court in Arizona found insufficient evidence that a 70-80% recall target for technology assisted review is deficient","summary":"In October 2026 a federal court in Arizona declined to require a 90-95% recall for technology assisted review. It found insufficient evidence that the defendants' 70-80% target was deficient.","date_observed":"2026-10-05","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","benefit_status":"intended","source_collection":null,"source_entry":null,"account":"Chauffeur drivers brought a wage-and-hour class action against J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation and other defendants in federal court in Arizona. The defendants proposed a technology assisted review protocol with a recall rate of 70-80%. The plaintiffs said that too many relevant documents would not be produced, and they asked for 90-95%. The defendants said that manual review after TAR, to raise recall, had delayed production. In an order dated 2 October and filed on 5 October 2026, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle declined to set a presumptive recall rate. He found insufficient evidence that a recall rate of 70-80% is deficient. He noted that such a rate is not out of the ordinary in federal litigation. He gave the defendants 75 days to finish the review. For two search terms, they had ten days to finish and to share validation metrics, including recall. The plaintiffs may raise recall again if they find that highly relevant documents were not produced. The court did not examine the review, which was still under way.","category":"benefit created","unexpected":false,"purpose":"A vendor that the order does not name built the TAR software to identify relevant documents for production.","system":"Technology Assisted Review (TAR)","model_version":null,"developer":"Not named in the order","deployer":"J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC and the other defendants","location":"Phoenix, Arizona, United States","domain":"Legal services / e-discovery","segment":null,"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Time","work_activities":["4.A.2.a.2","4.A.1.a.1"],"taxonomy_note":"The order states no time or cost saved. The type rests on the defendants' account that manual review after TAR delayed production and on the deadlines that the court set.","registry_ids":{},"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":null,"reason":"The review was still under way when the court ruled, and the order reports no recall achieved and no time saved."}],"ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court ruled on the recall target and did not examine the review or its results. The order does not name the software, and it mentions the training of TAR software only in a passage quoted from another case."},"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle). McGhee v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC, No. CV-24-03394-PHX-DJH, Order (Doc. 323), dated 2 October 2026 and filed 5 October 2026, pp. 3-4 and 8-9. CourtListener RECAP copy.","title":"McGhee v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC, No. CV-24-03394-PHX-DJH, Order (Doc. 323)","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720.323.0.pdf","date":"2026-10-05","written_by":"independent","quote":"At the current juncture, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a TAR recall rate of 70-80% is deficient, especially given that it is not out-of-the-ordinary to have such a TAR recall rate in federal litigation."}],"replication":{"produced_by":["The defendants proposed a TAR protocol with a recall rate of 70-80%.","The defendants reviewed documents by hand after TAR to obtain a higher recall rate."],"must_hold":["The defendants give the plaintiffs the validation metrics for the review, including the recall rate.","The plaintiffs can raise the recall rate again if highly relevant documents turn out not to have been produced."],"echoes":[]},"paired_incident":null,"headline":"Arizona court declines to raise a 70-80% recall target for *TAR*","metric":"a recall rate of 70-80%","comparator":null,"later":null,"value":null,"developer_country":null,"deployer_country":"United States","unrated_because":"The court ruled on the recall target before the review was finished, so the order reports no result.","brief_notes":null,"brief":null,"revisions":[{"date":"2026-11-01","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.","source":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720.323.0.pdf","editor":"AIBD"}],"confidence":"found","shade":"high","claim_status":"Found by a court","claim_basis":"Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","case_jurisdictions":["United States"],"profile":{"case_id":"AIBD-0990","catalog_version":"1.0.0","source_fingerprint":"eeb5c01fa10e311b64652f8a3d030a8576c7c673f60b9cb6f292c4c57dd4f77a","collection_refs":[{"collection_id":"aibd","version":"2026-10-31"},{"collection_id":"querist","version":"2026-10-25"}],"source_ids":["AIBD-0990-source-0001"],"families":{"strategic assessments":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"evaluations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"monetary observations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"institutional decisions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]}},"fields":{"actors[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"developer":"Not named in the order","deployer":"J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC and the other defendants"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["developer","deployer"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"actors[].ownership_control":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_contribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"category":"benefit created","ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court ruled on the recall target and did not examine the review or its results. The order does not name the software, and it mentions the training of TAR software only in a passage quoted from another case."}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ai_role","category"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].alternatives":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].assessor_date":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].depth":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].display_confidence":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"confidence":"high","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by a court","basis":"Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","interpretation":"Existing display rule preserved; the richer outcome-specific confidence question still needs review."}},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rationale":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review was still under way when the court ruled, and the order reports no recall achieved and no time saved."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rubric_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].status_basis":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].target":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review was still under way when the court ruled, and the order reports no recall achieved and no time saved."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"availability":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"brief":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_kind":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_links[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_links":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_strength":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by a court"}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0990-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","inferred":false}},"claims[].missingness":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].proposition":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"cross_border_flows[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"decisions[].action_outcome":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].grounds":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].institution_task":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].success_criterion":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"deployment_stage":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"classification":"routine use","answer":"The system was in routine use. The defendants were running the review when the court ruled.","scope":"The period and activity described in the case."}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0990-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"The system was in routine use. The defendants were running the review when the court ruled.","inferred":false}},"economics[].amount":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].costs[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].counterfactual":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].currency_price_basis":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].gross_net":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].measure_type":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].period_unit":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].realization":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].recipient_payer":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].return_payback":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].valuation_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"evaluations[].ai_uplift":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].comparator":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].design":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].effect":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].exposure":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].id":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].measurement_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].metric":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].reproduction_materials":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].setting_sample":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].uncertainty_limitations":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"external_references[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"follow_up[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"human_oversight":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"id":"AIBD-0990"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["id"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"infrastructure_dependencies[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiaries":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiary_count":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].benefit_type":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Time","taxonomy_note":"The order states no time or cost saved. The type rests on the defendants' account that manual review after TAR delayed production and on the deadlines that the court set."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_type","taxonomy_note"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].claim":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"Chauffeur drivers brought a wage-and-hour class action against J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation and other defendants in federal court in Arizona. The defendants proposed a technology assisted review protocol with a recall rate of 70-80%. The plaintiffs said that too many relevant documents would not be produced, and they asked for 90-95%. The defendants said that manual review after TAR, to raise recall, had delayed production. In an order dated 2 October and filed on 5 October 2026, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle declined to set a presumptive recall rate. He found insufficient evidence that a recall rate of 70-80% is deficient. He noted that such a rate is not out of the ordinary in federal litigation. He gave the defendants 75 days to finish the review. For two search terms, they had ten days to finish and to share validation metrics, including recall. The plaintiffs may raise recall again if they find that highly relevant documents were not produced. The court did not examine the review, which was still under way.","benefit_type":"Reduced Task Time"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].distribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].duration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].id":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].stakeholder_group":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review was still under way when the court ruled, and the order reports no recall achieved and no time saved."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].status":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_status":"intended"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_status"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].tradeoffs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].unexpected":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"unexpected":false,"purpose":"A vendor that the order does not name built the TAR software to identify relevant documents for production."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["unexpected","purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"places[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"location":"Phoenix, Arizona, United States","deployer_country":"United States"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["location","deployer_country"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"purpose":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"purpose":"A vendor that the order does not name built the TAR software to identify relevant documents for production."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"record_dates":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"date_observed":"2026-10-05","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","revisions":[{"date":"2026-11-01","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.","source":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720.323.0.pdf","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["date_observed","date_basis","date_precision","revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"replication.attempts[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"replication.conditions":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"replication":{"produced_by":["The defendants proposed a TAR protocol with a recall rate of 70-80%.","The defendants reviewed documents by hand after TAR to obtain a higher recall rate."],"must_hold":["The defendants give the plaintiffs the validation metrics for the review, including the recall rate.","The plaintiffs can raise the recall rate again if highly relevant documents turn out not to have been produced."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"revision_history[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"revisions":[{"date":"2026-11-01","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.","source":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720.323.0.pdf","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sector":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"domain":"Legal services / e-discovery"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["domain"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].access_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].citation_locator":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle). McGhee v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC, No. CV-24-03394-PHX-DJH, Order (Doc. 323), dated 2 October 2026 and filed 5 October 2026, pp. 3-4 and 8-9. CourtListener RECAP copy.","title":"McGhee v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC, No. CV-24-03394-PHX-DJH, Order (Doc. 323)","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720.323.0.pdf","date":"2026-10-05","written_by":"independent","quote":"At the current juncture, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a TAR recall rate of 70-80% is deficient, especially given that it is not out-of-the-ordinary to have such a TAR recall rate in federal litigation."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["AIBD-0990-source-0001"],"role":"Existing evidence items, in their original order"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"sources[].language":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle). McGhee v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC, No. CV-24-03394-PHX-DJH, Order (Doc. 323), dated 2 October 2026 and filed 5 October 2026, pp. 3-4 and 8-9. CourtListener RECAP copy.","title":"McGhee v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC, No. CV-24-03394-PHX-DJH, Order (Doc. 323)","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720/gov.uscourts.azd.1414720.323.0.pdf","date":"2026-10-05","written_by":"independent","quote":"At the current juncture, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a TAR recall rate of 70-80% is deficient, especially given that it is not out-of-the-ordinary to have such a TAR recall rate in federal litigation."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].upstream_sources":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"strategic_assessments[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"strategic assessments"},"summary":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"summary":"In October 2026 a federal court in Arizona declined to require a 90-95% recall for technology assisted review. It found insufficient evidence that the defendants' 70-80% target was deficient.","account":"Chauffeur drivers brought a wage-and-hour class action against J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation and other defendants in federal court in Arizona. The defendants proposed a technology assisted review protocol with a recall rate of 70-80%. The plaintiffs said that too many relevant documents would not be produced, and they asked for 90-95%. The defendants said that manual review after TAR, to raise recall, had delayed production. In an order dated 2 October and filed on 5 October 2026, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle declined to set a presumptive recall rate. He found insufficient evidence that a recall rate of 70-80% is deficient. He noted that such a rate is not out of the ordinary in federal litigation. He gave the defendants 75 days to finish the review. For two search terms, they had ten days to finish and to share validation metrics, including recall. The plaintiffs may raise recall again if they find that highly relevant documents were not produced. The court did not examine the review, which was still under way."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["summary","account"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].autonomy_permissions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].component_role":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].deployment_configuration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].inputs_outputs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_name":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].product_name":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"system":"Technology Assisted Review (TAR)"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["system"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].provider":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"taxonomy_crosswalks[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"title":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"title":"A federal court in Arizona found insufficient evidence that a 70-80% recall target for technology assisted review is deficient","headline":"Arizona court declines to raise a 70-80% recall target for *TAR*"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["title","headline"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"version":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["f93fd7f52de45ba36156a7d263831956655dea7c0daaebdc92ebbef61341631b"],"role":"SHA-256 of the complete public record and its assessments"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"SHA-256 of the public record, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"workflow":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"Chauffeur drivers brought a wage-and-hour class action against J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation and other defendants in federal court in Arizona. The defendants proposed a technology assisted review protocol with a recall rate of 70-80%. The plaintiffs said that too many relevant documents would not be produced, and they asked for 90-95%. The defendants said that manual review after TAR, to raise recall, had delayed production. In an order dated 2 October and filed on 5 October 2026, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle declined to set a presumptive recall rate. He found insufficient evidence that a recall rate of 70-80% is deficient. He noted that such a rate is not out of the ordinary in federal litigation. He gave the defendants 75 days to finish the review. For two search terms, they had ten days to finish and to share validation metrics, including recall. The plaintiffs may raise recall again if they find that highly relevant documents were not produced. The court did not examine the review, which was still under way.","replication":{"produced_by":["The defendants proposed a TAR protocol with a recall rate of 70-80%.","The defendants reviewed documents by hand after TAR to obtain a higher recall rate."],"must_hold":["The defendants give the plaintiffs the validation metrics for the review, including the recall rate.","The plaintiffs can raise the recall rate again if highly relevant documents turn out not to have been produced."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"}},"summary":{"total":91,"addressed":91,"known":27,"reviewed":2,"reviewed_complete":2,"reviewed_partial":0,"record_mapped":25,"review_not_assessed":64,"not_assessed":0,"complete":false,"by_state":{"value_present":27,"not_reported":0,"unresolved":64,"not_assessed":0,"not_applicable":0,"withheld":0,"source_unavailable":0}}},"presentation_version":"6f0c8e1d411009c2993c103c5c520b34cd1716c7ea51371d4a248e1804120792"}