PredictiveCoding.com
 

A comprehensive database of legal cases pertaining to Predictive Coding

     

Predictive Coding

Predictive Coding (also known as Technology-Assisted Review [TAR] or Computer-Assisted Review [CAR]) is the process of using a machine-learning algorithm to help lawyers review, analyze, and identify relevant content within large document volumes for litigation.  This focused database collects and organizes all of the published court orders that bear on Predictive Coding in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia. Model stipulations and orders are available here and here.

OpenText Predictive Coding
 

  1. Wells Fargo Insurance Services v. Alliant Insurance Services

    • Date: 9/5/2017

    • Jurisdiction: Delaware - Chancery Court

    • Judge: J. Travis Laster

    • Issue 1: Keywords

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: If technology assisted review is used to limit the documents instead of search terms, within 30 days following the receipt of a request for production of documents, or a later time if agreed to by the parties, the parties shall exchange technology assisted review protocols that each producing party proposes to use to identify responsive ESI."

  2. In Re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation

    • Date: 7/17/2017

    • Jurisdiction: Louisiana - Western District

    • Judge: Rebecca F. Doherty

    • Issue 1: Costs

    • Take-away: Allocating fees and costs, including those associated with Predictive Coding, at the resolution of a MDL.

  3. Webb v. Exxon Mobil

    • Date: 5/11/2017

    • Jurisdiction: 8th Circuit

    • Judge: William Jay Riley

    • Issue 1: Compelling Use

    • Issue 2: Cooperation

    • Take-away: Affirming the denial of a motion to compel the use of predictive coding.

  4. FCA US v. Cummins, No. 2:16-cv-12883(E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2017)

    • Date: 3/28/2017

    • Jurisdiction: Michigan - Eastern District

    • Judge: Avern Cohn

    • Issue 1: Keywords

    • Issue 2: Defensibility

    • Take-away: "Applying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces the universe of electronic material is the preferred method. The TAR results can then be culled by the use of search terms or other methods."

  5. Davine et al v. The Golub Corp., No. 3:14-cv-30136 (D. Mass. Feb. 8, 2017)

    • Date: 2/8/2017

    • Jurisdiction: Massachusetts - Federal District

    • Judge: Katherine A. Robertson

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "Defendants are entitled to rely on their predictive coding model for purposes of identifying relevant responsive documents, and may cease their review of the documents identified as possibly relevant when they made a good faith determination that the burden of continuing the review outweighs the benefit in terms of identifying relevant documents."

  6. OSI Rest. Partners, LLC v. United Ohana, LLC, C.A. No. 12353-CB, (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2017)

    • Date: 1/27/2017

    • Jurisdiction: Delaware - Chancery

    • Judge: Andre G. Bouchard

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Stipulation approving the use predictive coding

  7. McConnell Dowell Constructors Pty. v Santam, Ltd. [2016] VSC 734 (2 Dec. 2016) (Austl.)

    • Date: 12/2/2016

    • Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia)

    • Judge: Justice Vickery

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of TAR on a corpus of 1.4-4 million documents with a mutually agreed-upon protocol

  8. In re 1-800 Contacts, Inc., F.T.C (Nov. 17, 2016)

    • Date: 11/17/2016

    • Jurisdiction: FTC

    • Judge: Protocol

    • Issue 1: Cooperation

    • Take-away: Motion with a proposed order including a TAR disclosure protocol.

  9. Money Max v QBE, [2016] Federal Court of Australia VID 5132015 (Unreported, J Murphy, 7 Nov. 2016)

    • Date: 11/7/2016

    • Jurisdiction: Federal Court of Australia - Victoria

    • Judge: Justice Murphy

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of TAR and a protocol with specific disclosure obligations.

  10. In re Viagra, No. 16-MD-02691 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016)

    • Date: 10/14/2016

    • Jurisdiction: California - Northern District

    • Judge: Sallie Kim

    • Issue 1: Compelling use

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "Even if predictive coding were a more efficient and better method, which Pfizer disputes, it is not clear on what basis the Court could compel Pfizer to use a particular form of ESI, especially in the absence of any evidence that Pfizer's preferred method would produce, or has produced, insufficient discovery responses. Therefore, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff's motion."

  11. B&R Supermarket v. Visa, No. 3:16-CV-01150 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016)

    • Date: 8/29/2016

    • Jurisdiction: California - Northern District

    • Judge: Defensibility

    • Issue 1: Protocol

    • Take-away: "To reduce the costs and burdens of document review and production, any party may use predictive coding or technology-assisted review for the purpose of culling the documents to be reviewed or produced. Any party using predictive coding or technology-assisted review ('TAR') to cull the documents to be reviewed agrees that as early as reasonably practicable (and in any event prior to using such tools) it will disclose to the opposing parties the type of technology it will be using and a general description of the TAR methodology that will be used."

  12. Hyles v. New York City, No. 1:10-CV-03119 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016)

    • Date: 8/1/2016

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Southern District

    • Judge: Andrew J. Peck

    • Issue 1: Compelling use

    • Issue 2: Defensibility

    • Take-away: "The Court would have liked the City to use TAR in this case. But the Court cannot, and will not, force the City to do so."

  13. Order Denying Mot. Compel, Dynamo Holdings Ltd. v. Commissioner, No. 2685-11 (T.C. 2016)

    • Date: 7/13/2016

    • Jurisdiction: Tax Court

    • Judge: Ronald Buch

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the predictive coding process used and denying a motion to compel.

  14. In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liab. Litig., No. 0:15-MD-02666 (D. Mn. July 8, 2016)

    • Date: 7/8/2016

    • Jurisdiction: Minnesota - Federal District

    • Judge: Joan N. Ericksen

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Order and protocol approving the use of predictive coding and describing workflow.

  15. Brown v. BCA Trading, [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch) 996

    • Date: 5/17/2016

    • Jurisdiction: High Court Of Justice Chancery Division

    • Judge: Registrar Jones

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Costs

    • Take-away: "I reach the conclusion based on cost that predictive coding must be the way forward."

  16. Pyrrho Investments v. MWB Property, [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch) 38

    • Date: 2/16/2016

    • Jurisdiction: High Court Of Justice Chancery Division

    • Judge: Master Matthews

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "Accordingly, I considered that the present was a suitable case in which to use, and that it would promote the overriding objective set out in Part 1 of the CPR if I approved the use of, predictive coding software, and I therefore did so. Whether it would be right for approval to be given in other cases will, of course, depend upon the particular circumstances obtaining in them."

  17. Memo Endorsed Order, Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A., No.14-CV-3042, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2015)

    • Date: 8/13/2015

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Southern District

    • Judge: Andrew J. Peck

    • Issue 1: Cooperation

    • Issue 2: Costs

  18. Order Appointing Special Master, Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A., No.14-CV-3042, (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015)

    • Date: 7/15/2015

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Southern District

    • Judge: Andrew J. Peck

    • Issue 1: Special Master

    • Issue 2: Protocol

  19. Burd v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13-CV-20976, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88518 (S.D.W.V. July 8, 2015)

    • Date: 7/8/2015

    • Jurisdiction: West Virginia - Southern District

    • Judge: Cheryl A. Eifert

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "[T]he parties are ORDERED to involve their IT experts and to consider other methods of searching such as predictive coding; perhaps, making use of the publications of the Sedona Conference."

  20. Boardley v. Household Finance Corp., 8:12-CV-3009, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70098 (D. Md. June 1, 2015)

    • Date: 6/1/2015

    • Jurisdiction: Maryland - Federal District

    • Judge: Paul W. Grimm

    • Issue 1: Cooperation

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "Parties requesting ESI discovery and parties responding to such requests are expected to cooperate in the development of search methodology and criteria to achieve proportionality in ESI discovery, including appropriate use of computer-assisted search methodology, such as Technology Assisted Review, which employs advanced analytical software applications that can screen for relevant, privileged, or protected information in ways that are more accurate than manual review and involve far less expense."

  21. Malone v. Kantner Ingredients, No. 4:12-CV-3190, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41951 (D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2015)

    • Date: 3/31/2015

    • Jurisdiction: Nebraska - Federal District

    • Judge: Cheryl R. Zwart

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "Predictive coding is now promoted (and gaining acceptance) as not only a more efficient and cost effective method of ESI review, but a more accurate one."

  22. Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

    • Date: 3/2/2015

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Southern District

    • Judge: Andrew J. Peck

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "In the three years since Da Silva Moore, the case law has developed to the point that it is now black letter law that where the producing party wants to utilize TAR for document review, courts will permit it."

  23. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc., No. 14-CV-01519, 2015 WL 471720 (D. Conn. Jan. 28, 2015)

    • Date: 1/28/2015

    • Jurisdiction: Connecticut - Federal District

    • Judge: Victor A. Bolden

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Seed Set disclosure

    • Take-away: "It is the producing party's right to determine the best method of search and review and how it will comply with Rule 26. To the extent that a Party chooses to search and review using a technology or methodology other than search terms (including, for instance, predictive coding), that Party shall disclose its intent to use that technology and the name of the review tool. However, the Party need not share the intricacies of said methodology unless and until there is a good faith allegation of a violation of Rule 26."

  24. Chevron Corp. v. Snaider, No. 1:14-cv-01354, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4939 (D. Colo. Jan. 15, 2015)

    • Date: 1/15/2015

    • Jurisdiction: Colorado - Federal District

    • Judge: Kathleen M. Tafoya

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Costs

    • Take-away: "At the hearing, Snaider claimed that document review would take approximately 300 hours. However, Snaider does not address the likelihood that in a case such as this computer-assisted review would no doubt be invoked, and while that is costly, it is much more efficient than assigning individuals to review a large volume of paperwork."

  25. Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No 1:14-CV-04074, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165956 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014)

    • Date: 11/24/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Arkansas - Western District

    • Judge: Susan O. Hickey

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "In lieu of identifying responsive ESI using the search terms and custodians/electronic systems . . . a party may use a technology assisted review platform to identify potentially relevant documents and ESI."

  26. Smilovits v. First Solar Inc., No 2:12-CV-00555 (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2014)

    • Date: 11/20/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Arizona - Federal District

    • Judge: David G. Campbell

    • Issue 1: Protocol

    • Issue 2: Defensibility

    • Take-away: "The Court cannot accept the proposition that Defendants’ use of predictive coding effectively confines Plaintiffs’ document discovery to initial requests for production."

  27. Good v. American Water Works Co., No. 2:14-CV-01374, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154788 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 29, 2014)

    • Date: 10/29/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Virginia - Western District

    • Judge: John T. Copenhaver, Jr.

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Privilege

    • Take-away: Encouraging the incorporation and employment of computer-assisted privilege review in a 502(d) order.

  28. Argument Matrix, Smilovits v. First Solar Inc., No 2:12-CV-00555, (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2014)

    • Date: 10/21/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Arizona - Federal District

    • Judge: David G. Campbell

    • n/a

    • n/a

  29. Arnett v. Bank of America, No. 3:11-CV-1372, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130903 (D. Or. Sept. 18, 2014)

    • Date: 9/18/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Oregon - Federal District

    • Judge: Michael H. Simon

    • Issue 1: Costs

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Noting that class counsel "produced more than 1.1 million documents comprising more than 4 million pages . . . using search terms, predictive coding, and manual review methods." The court went on to award class counsel $7.750 million in attorney fees and $736,294.42 for litigation costs (including discovery).

  30. Dynamo Holdings Ltd. v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. 183 (2014)

    • Date: 9/17/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Tax Court                  

    • Judge: Ronald Buch

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving Plaintiff's use of predictive coding to ensure that privileged or confidential information is not disclosed, and observing that parties do not need to ask for permission to use PC.

  31. United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearny, No. 4:11-cv-3209, 2014 WL 4215381 (D. Neb. Aug. 25, 2014)

    • Date: 8/25/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Nebraska - Federal District

    • Judge: Cheryl R. Zwart

    • Issue 1: Costs

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: After Defendant used predictive coding to produce the first round of documents, the opposition made a motion to compel additional documents. The defendant argued for cost-shifting for additional production, but the court held that the MTC was facially over-broad and so did not reach the issue of cost-shifting.

  32. In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., No. 12-cv-1737, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108505 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014)

    • Date: 8/6/2014

    • Jurisdiction: California - Southern District

    • Judge: Jill L. Burkhardt

    • Issue 1: Costs

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Discussing the cost proportionality of predictive coding and work flows, including adding new documents to a stabilized system.

  33. Bridgestone v. IBM, No. 3:13cv1196, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142525 (M.D. Tenn. July 22, 2014)

    • Date: 7/22/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Tennessee - Middle District

    • Judge: Joe Brown

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the combined use of keyword searches and predictive coding, and interpreting the case management order to allow the adoption of predictive coding.

  34. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, No. 2:11-CV-00678-LRH, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69166 (D. Nev. July 18, 2014)

    • Date: 7/18/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Nevada - Federal District

    • Judge: Peggy Leen

    • Issue 1: Protocol

    • Issue 2: Defensibility

    • Take-away: Although the Court stated, "Predictive coding has emerged as a far more accurate means of producing responsive ESI in discovery. Studies show it is far more accurate than human review or keyword searches which have their own limitations," the Court denied the adoption of predictive coding where Plaintiff unilaterally implemented it without input or consultation from opposing counsel.

  35. Civil Minutes, Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:12-CV-00551 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2014)

    • Date: 6/26/2014

    • Jurisdiction: California - Central District

    • Judge: Patrick Walsh

    • Issue 1: Compelling Use

    • Issue 2: Costs

    • Take-away: "In lieu of keyword searches, the Court ordered the City to use predictive coding to locate the most relevant documents."

  36. United States v. Exxonmobil Pipeline Co., No. 4:13-CV-00355, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81607 (E.D. Ark. June 10, 2014)

    • Date: 6/10/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Arkansas - Eastern District

    • Judge: Kristine G. Baker

    • Issue 1: Protocol

    • Issue 2: Defensibility

    • Take-away: "Defendants represent to the Court that they suggested using a predictive coding methodwhich would ease their burden but that, as of the time of these filings, the United States had notagreed to this method of review. There is no indication in the parties’ submissions that they seek the Court to resolve disputes as to the method of review to be utilized in this case."

  37. D.I.C. v. Bowden, No. 4:13-CV-245, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77890 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

    • Date: 6/6/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Georgia - Southern District

    • Judge: George Smith

    • Issue 1: Compelling Use

    • Issue 2: Defensibility

    • Take-away: Ordering parties to "consider the use of predictive coding."

  38. In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., 88 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 966 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

    • Date: 5/12/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania - Eastern District

    • Judge: Michael Baylson

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Technologies such as predictive coding are considered "more sophisticated methodologies" for conducting discovery.

  39. Aurora Coop. Elevator Co. v. Aventine Renewable Energy, No. 4:12-CV-230 (D. Neb. Mar. 10, 2014)

    • Date: 3/10/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Nebraska - Federal District

    • Judge: Cheryl R. Zwart

    • Issue 1: Protocol

    • Issue 2: Defensibility

    • Take-away: Parties must "consult with a computer forensic expert to create search protocols, including predictive coding as needed, for a computerized review of the parties' electronic records."

  40. Hous. Fin. Agency v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., No. 11-CV-6189 DLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19156 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2014)

    • Date: 2/14/2014

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Southern District

    • Judge: Denise Cote

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of predictive coding.

  41. The New Mexico State Inv. Council v. Bland, No. D-101-cv-2011-01534, 2014 WL 772860 (N.M. Dist. Feb. 12, 2014)

    • Date: 2/12/2014

    • Jurisdiction: New Mexico - Federal District

    • Judge: Sarah M. Singleton

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "In reviewing documents, Day Pitney implemented various advanced machine learning tools such as predictive coding, concept grouping, near-duplication detection and e-mail threading. These tools . . . enabled the reviewers on the document analysis teams to work more efficiently with the documents and identify potentially relevant information with greater accuracy than the standard linear review."

  42. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Decision One Mortg. Co., No. 13 L 5823, 2014 WL 764707 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Jan. 28, 2014)

    • Date: 1/28/2014

    • Jurisdiction: Illinois - Circuit Court

    • Judge: Raymond W. Mitchell

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Cooperation

    • Take-away: "If the parties agree that predictive coding would be appropriate in this case, they are encouraged to employ that tool."

  43. In re Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liab. Litig. (In re Biomet III), No. 3:12-MD-2391 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2013)

    • Date: 12/10/2013

    • Jurisdiction: Indiana - Northern District

    • Judge: Robert L. Miller

    • Issue 1: Special master

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: A special master was not needed to handle discovery challenges related to predictive coding.

  44. United States v Educ. Mgmt LLC, No. 2:07-cv-00461, 2013 WL 12140442 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2013)

    • Date: 11/23/2013

    • Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania - Western District

    • Judge: Terrence F. McVerry

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "Predictive coding appears to offer a reasonable means by which Defendants may enhance the efficiency of their discovery efforts."

  45. In re Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liab. Litig. (In re Biomet II), No. 3:12-MD-2391, 2013 WL 6405156 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2013)

    • Date: 8/21/2013

    • Jurisdiction: Indiana - Northern District

    • Judge: Robert L. Miller

    • Issue 1: Protocol

    • Issue 2: Cooperation

    • Take-away: The producing party need not identify seed set documents and how they were coded.

  46. Hinterberger v. Catholic Health Sys., Inc., No. 08-CV-380, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73141 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)

    • Date: 5/21/2013

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Western District

    • Judge: William M. Skretny

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of predictive coding.

  47. Gordon v. Kaleida Health, No. 08-CV-378S, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73141 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)

    • Date: 5/21/2013

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Western District

    • Judge: Leslie G. Foschio

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of predictive coding.

  48. In re Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liab. Litig. (In re Biomet I), No. 3:12-MD-2391, 2013 WL 1729682 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013)

    • Date: 4/23/2013

    • Jurisdiction: Indiana - Northern District

    • Judge: Robert L. Miller

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of predictive coding in conjunction with keyword culling.

  49. Edwards v. Nat'l Milk Producers Federation, No. 3:11-cv-04766 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 17, 2013)

    • Date: 4/16/2013

    • Jurisdiction: California - Northern District

    • Judge: Jeffrey S. White

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of predictive coding and the proposed protocol.

  50. Cambridge Place Inv. Mgmt, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley, No. SUCV2010-2741 (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk Mar. 21, 2013)

    • Date: 3/21/2013

    • Jurisdiction: Massachusetts - Superior Court

    • Judge: Thomas P. Billings

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of predictive coding and ordering a meet and confer to reach an agreement over the predictive coding protocol.

  51. Chevron Corp. v. Donzinger, No. 11cv0691, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36353 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013)

    • Date: 3/14/2013

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Southern District

    • Judge: Lewis Kaplan

    • Issue 1: Protocol

    • Issue 2: Costs

    • Take-away: Parties should analyze "whether and to what extent predictive coding could 'reduce the burden and effort' required to comply with the Subpoena."

  52. Harris v. Subcontracting Concepts, LLC, No. 1:12-MC-82 DNH, 2013 WL 951336 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2013)

    • Date: 3/11/2013

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Northern District

    • Judge: Randolph R. Treece

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "Although this Court may not share the technological sophistication of Mr. Wise, I certainly know that the amount of time, cost, and effort expended to produce these records from the computer is significantly less than by hand. With the advent of software, predictive coding, spreadsheets, and similar advances, the time and cost to produce large reams of documents can be dramatically reduced. Further, suggesting to DOL to accept the production of these documents in either native format, or through a zip file, or some other electronic transaction should minimize SCI LLC's anxiety. Hence, the Court is more convinced than ever that SCI LLC is not subject to an overwhelming and incomprehensible burden."

  53. EORHB v. HOA Holdings, No. 7409-VCL, 2012 WL 4896670 (Del. Ch. Ct. Oct. 15, 2012)

    • Date: 10/15/2012

    • Jurisdiction: Delaware - Chancery Court

    • Judge: Travis Laster

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "This seems to me to be an ideal non-expedited case in which the parties would benefit from using predictive coding. I would like you all, if you do not want to use predictive coding, to show cause why this is not a case where predictive coding is the way to go."

  54. Kleen Products v. Packaging Corp. of Am., No. 10 C 5711, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139632 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2012)

    • Date: 8/21/2012

    • Jurisdiction: Illinois - Northern District

    • Judge: Nan Nolan

    • Issue 1: Protocol

    • Issue 2: Cooperation

    • Take-away: Ordering plaintiffs to withdraw their demand to re-do discovery with predictive coding.

  55. In re Actos: (Pioglitazone) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 6:11-MD-2299, 2012 WL 7861249 (W.D. La. July 27, 2012)

    • Date: 7/27/2012

    • Jurisdiction: Louisiana - Western District

    • Judge: Rebecca Doherty

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of predictive coding.

  56. Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency, 877 F. Supp. 2d 87 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

    • Date: 7/13/2012

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Southern District

    • Judge: Shira A. Scheindlin

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: "Parties can (and frequently should) rely on . . . [predictive coding] to identify responsive documents."

  57. Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation, No. CL 61040, 2012 WL 1431215 (Vir. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012)

    • Date: 4/23/2012

    • Jurisdiction: Virginia - Circuit Court

    • Judge: James H. Chamblin

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Endorsing the use of predictive coding over objections by opposing counsel.

  58. Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

    • Date: 2/24/2012

    • Jurisdiction: New York - Southern District

    • Judge: Andrew J.Peck

    • Issue 1: Defensibility

    • Issue 2: Protocol

    • Take-away: Approving the use of predictive coding.