T-A-R (“TAR”) and Predictive Coding

Case Law, Reports and Articles

Case Law:

2017

  • Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia), Practice Note

    • SC GEN 5 Guidelines for the Use of Technology  (1/30/17) (in 19 pp.  “Technology in Civil Litigation” Note, Australian court “promotes the effective use of technology in the conduct of civil litigation to reduce time and costs and sets  forth  the Court’s expectations”) in relation to the use of technology, the facilities which the court is able to provide, and protocols which may be employed.” 

2016

  • McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1) [2016] VSC 734

    • 12/02/16: Order (Australian court, in large case, approving predictive coding “where all parties have agreed that [it] is appropriate  . . . and have cooperated in establishing a protocol,” and noting that “[t]he use of technology assisted review (TAR) is not confined to cases where all parties to the litigation directly participate in the process[; and that a] single party may employ the technology in conducting a review of its own documents.”)
  • Money Max Int PTY Ltd. v. QBE Ins. Gp. Ltd., No. VID513/2015:

    • 11/07/16: Order (Australian court ordering “Respondent is to provide to the Applicant a report from FTI Consulting and/or the Respondent’s solicitors describing with particularity the manner in which the Respondent has applied technology assisted review (TAR) for  . . . and the results of the application of TAR, including” information as to eight listed categories.
  • In re Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Prods. Liab. Litig. No. 16-md-02691-RS , 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144925 (SK) (N.D. Cal.):

    • 10/14/16: Order (denying Plaintiffs’ request to require Defendant to use predictive coding instead of an iterative search process; “find[ing] Hyles well-reasoned[; e]ven 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”)
  • Hyles v. New York City, 10 Civ. 3119, 2016 WL 4077114(S.D.N.Y.):

    • 08/01/16: Order (Magistrate Judge Peck denying Plaintiff’s request to force Defendant to use TAR where defendant preferred keyword searching; in light of Sedona Principle 6, “responding part[y] . . . best situated to evaluate . . . . methodologies” and standard being “whether the search results are reasonable and proportional”), as discussed in this article
  • Dynamo Holdings v. Comm’r, Nos. 2685-11, 8393-12 (U.S. Tax):

    • 07/12/16:  Order, 2016 WL 4204067 (where petitioners — two related companies — used second round of predictive coding “to remove documents tentatively protected from production as privileged,” rejecting Commissioner’s contention that privilege was waived because Petitioners shared a computer system but ordering Petitioners to flesh out privilege log such that it would be “comprehensive”)
    • 09/17/14:  Order, 143 T.C. No. 9, 2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40 (based in part on expert testimony as to process and costs, allowing petitioners to use predictive coding as to backup tapes’ contents to respond to Tax Commissioner’s production request)
  • Brown v. BCA Trading, [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch) (UK High Court of Justice Chancery Division Companies Court):

    • 05/17/16: Approved Judgment (British court approving use of predictive coding; citing Pyrrho, linked and summarized below)
  • Pyrrho Investments and MWB Business Exchange v. MWB Property, [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch)  (UK High Court of Justice Chancery Division):

    • 02/16/16: Approved Judgment (British court “approving the use of predictive coding in the disclosure process” in this “suitable case” in light of 10 factors militating in favor of same and “no factors of any weight pointing in the opposite direction”)

2015

  • ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Mastercard Tech., LLC, 2015 WL 4249760 (D. Neb.):

    • 07/13/15: Order (“order[ing] the parties to once again confer in an effort to reach an agreement regarding the search methodology to be employed in retrieving the requested information; [i]n the event the parties cannot come to an agreement, the Court will immediately refer the matter to a special master. . . .”)
  • Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 3:13-cv-06529 (S.D. Va.):

  • Malone v.  Kantner, 4:12-CV-3190 (D. Neb.):

  • Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., No. 14 Civ. 3042 (RMB) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y):

    • 03/03/15:  Opinion & Order [“Predictive Coding  . . .  a.k.a. Technology Assisted Review (TAR) – Da Silva Moore Revisited”]
    • 03/02/15:  Stipulation and Order re: Use of Predictive Coding in Discovery
  • Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited & Ors v. Quinn, (Republic of Ireland High Court):

    • 03/03/15: Judgment (“I am satisfied that the proposed protocol will be more efficient than manual review in terms of saving costs and saving time[;] . . .  [L]ess than 10% of the 680,809 documents would need to be manually reviewed after employing predictive coding.  It is clear from this evidence how the cost of the discovery process and timeframe in which it would take place would, thus, be substantially reduced.”)

2014

  • Green v. Am. Modem Home Ins. Co., No. 14-CV-04074 (W.D. Ark.):

  • Good v. American Water Works Co., No. 2:14–01374 (S.D. W. Va.):

  • Arnett v. Bank of America, No. 3:11-cv-1372 (D. Or.):

  • In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Sec. Litig. (S.D. Cal.):

  • Bridgestone Am., Inc. v. IBM Corp., No. 13-1196 (M.D. Tenn.):

  • Independent Living Center of So. Cal. v. City of L.A., 2:12-cv-00551 (C.D. Cal.):

  • FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413–245 (S.D. Ga.):

  • Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, 11-cv-00678 (D. Nev.):

  • In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.):

  • Aurora Coop. Elevator Co. v. Aventine Renewable Energy, No. 12 Civ. 0230 (D. Neb.):

  • Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (S.D.N.Y.):

  • Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. HSBC N.A. Holdings Inc., 11 Civ. 6189 (S.D.N.Y.):

  • New Mexico State Investment Council v. Bland, D-101-cv-2011-01434 (D. N.M.):

  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Decision One Mortgage Co., LLC, (Ill. Cir. Ct.):

2013

  • EORHB, Inc., et al v. HOA Holdings, LLCC, No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch.)

    • 05/06/13: Unpublished Opinion, 2013 WL 1960621
    • 10/15/12:  Transcript re: multiple Motions, at 66-67 (TAR raised sua sponte)
  • In re Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 3:12–MD–2391 (N.D. Ind.):

  • Edwards v. Nat’l Milk Producers Fed’n, No. 11 Civ. 4766, (N.D. Cal.)

  • Chevron Corp. v. Donziger (S.D.N.Y):

  • Harris v. Subcontracting Concepts, LLC, No. 1:12-MC-82 (S.D.N.Y.):

  • Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 08cv1992 (S.D.N.Y.):

2012

  • In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 6:11-MD-2299 (W.D. La.):

T-A-R (“TAR”) and Predictive Coding:

Reports:

T-A-R (“TAR”) and Predictive Coding:

Articles: