Wikis > Resources

CTRL maintains a comprehensive database of predictive coding opinions and case management orders. This wiki is sortable on a number of key metrics like date, judge, and jurisdiction and each entry links to a pdf download page.

Case nameDateJurisdictionJudgeLexisNexis CitationWestlaw CitationKey Holdings / Quotes
Winfield v. City of New York, 15-CV-05236 (ECF 217)11/27/2017Southern District of New YorkHon. Katharine H. Parker2017 WL 5664852“In sum, the City’s training and review processes and protocols present no basis for finding that the City engaged in gross negligence in connection with its ESI discovery – far from it.”
Rabin v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, No. 16-cv-02276-JST (ECF 152)08/08/2017Northern District of CaliforniaHon. Jon S. Tigar2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125404 “But the Court will not set a lengthy schedule based on the possibility of future problems that have yet to arise, particularly given Defendant's claim that the ‘TAR process is capable of achieving an exceptionally high level of accuracy.’”
US LLC v. Cummins, Inc.,
No. 2:16-cv-12883 (ECF 69)
3/28/2017Michigan - Eastern DistrictAvern Cohn"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."
Davine et al v. The Golub Corporation et al., 3:14-cv-30136 (ECF 185)2/8/2017Massachusetts - Federal DistrictKatherine A. Robertson"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."
OSI Restaurant Partners v. United Ohana, C.A. No. 12353-CB, order (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 20171/27/2017Delaware - ChanceryAndre G. BouchardStipulation approving the use predictive coding
McConnell Dowell Constructors v. Santam LTD [2016] VSC 734 (Dec. 2 2016)12/2/2016Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia)Justice VickeryApproving the use of TAR on a corpus of 1.4-4 million documents with a mutually agreed-upon protocol
1-800-Contacts (FTC) (Nov. 17, 2016)11/17/2016FTCMotion with a proposed order including a TAR disclosure protocol
Money Max v. QBE, VID513/2015 (Federal Court of Australia) (Nov. 7, 2016)11/7/2016Federal Court of Australia - VictoriaJustice MurphyApproving the use of TAR and a protocol with specific disclosure obligations
In Re Viagra, 16-md-02691 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14 2016)10/14/2016California - Northern DistrictSallie Kim"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."
B&R Supermarket v. Visa, 3:16-cv-01150 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016)08/29/2016California - Northern District"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."
Hyles v. New York City, 1:10-cv-03119 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016)08/01/2016New York - Southern DistrictAndrew J. Peck"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."
Dynamo Holdings v. Comm'r (Dynamo II), No. 2685-11 (July 7, 2016).7/13/2016Tax CourtRonald BuchApproving the predictive coding process used and denying a motion to compel.
In Re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liability Litigation, 0:15-md-02666 (D. Mn. July 8, 2016).07/08/2016Minnesota - Federal DistrictJoan N. EricksenOrder and protocol approving the use of predictive coding and describing workflow.
Brown v BCA Trading, CR-2016-000996 (UK May 17, 2016)5/17/2016HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISIONMR REGISTRAR JONES[2016] EWHC 1464 (CH)[2016] EWHC 1464 (CH)"I reach the conclusion based on cost that predictive coding must be the way forward."
Pyrrho Investments v MWB Property, HC-2014-000038 (UK Feb 16, 2016)02/16/2016HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISIONMASTER MATTHEWS[2016] EWHC 256 (Ch)[2016] EWHC 256 (Ch)"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."
Burd v. Ford Motor Co., 3:13-cv-20976 (S.D.W.V. July 8, 2015)07/08/2015West Virginia - Southern DistrictCheryl A. Eifert2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88518"[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."
Boardley v. Household Finance Corp., 8:12-cv-3009 (D. Md. June 1, 2015) 06/01/2015Maryland - Federal DistrictPaul W. Grimm2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70098"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."
Malone v. Kantner Ingredients, 4:12-cv-3190 (D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2015) 03/31/2015Nebraska - Federal DistrictCheryl R. Zwart2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41951"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."
Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125, 1:14-cv-3042 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015) 03/02/2015New York - Southern DistrictAndrew J. Peck2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24996"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."
Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01519 (D. Con. Jan. 28, 2015).01/28/2015Connecticut - Federal DistrictVictor A. Bolden2015 WL 471720"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."
Chevron Corp. v. Snaider, No. 1:14-cv-01354 (D. Colo. Jan. 15, 2015).01/15/2015Colorado - Federal District
Kathleen M. Tafoya2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49392015 WL 226110"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."
Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No 1:14-cv-04074 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014).11/24/2014Arkansas - Western DistrictSusan O. Hickey2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1659562014 WL 6668422"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."
Smilovits v. First Solar, No 2:12-cv-00555 (D. Ariz. Nov. 20, 2014).11/20/2014Arizona - Federal DistrictDavid G. CampbellHolding, inter alia, that the use of predictive coding does not confine document discovery to initial requests for production.
Good v. American Water Works Co., Inc, No. 2:14-cv-01374, 2014 WL 5486827 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 29, 2014).10/29/2014Virginia - Western DistrictJohn T. Copenhaver, Jr.2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1547882014 WL 5486827Endorsing and encouraging the use of computer-assisted privilege review in 502(d) order.
Arnett v. Bank of Am., No. 3:11-cv-1372, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130903 (D. Or. Sept. 18, 2014).09/18/2014Oregon - Federal DistrictMichael H. Simon2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130903Noting 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).
Dynamo Holdings v. Comm'r, No. 2685-11, 143 T.C. No. 9 (2014).09/17/2014Tax CourtRonald Buch2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 402014 WL 4636526Approving the use of predictive coding and observing that parties do not need to ask for permission to use PC.
United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearny, No. 4:11-cv-3209, 2014 WL 4215381 (D. Neb. Aug. 25, 2014).08/25/2014Nebraska - Federal DistrictCheryl R. Zwart2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1180732014 WL 4215381Defendant used predictive coding to produce the first round of documents and 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.
In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., No. 12-cv-1737 JM JLB, 2014 WL 3867495 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014).08/06/2014California - Southern DistrictJill L. Burkhardt2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1085052014 WL 3867495Discussing the cost proportionality of predictive coding and work flows, including adding new documents to a stabilized system.
Bridgestone v. IBM, No. 3:13cv1196 (M.D. Tenn. July 22, 2014).07/22/2014Tennesee - Middle DistrictJoe Brown2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1425252014 WL 4923014(1) Approving the combined use of keyword searches and predictive coding; (2) interpreting case management order to allow adoption of predictive coding during discovery.
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, 2:11-CV-00678-LRH, 2014 WL 3563467 (D. Nev. July 18, 2014).07/18/2014Nevada - Federal DistrictPeggy Leen2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 691662014 WL 3563467"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." Narrowly interpreting case management order to deny the unilateral adoption of predictive coding during discovery
Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. City of Los Angeles, 2:12-cv-00551 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2014).06/26/2014California - Central DistrictPatrick WalshOrdering the defendant to use predictive coding to review 2 million documents and ordering the plaintiff to pay for 50% of the quality assurance costs if they insist on QC.
United States v. Exxonmobil Pipeline Co., No. 4:13-cv-00355, 2014 WL 2593781 (E.D. Ark. June 10, 2014).06/10/2014Arkansas - Eastern DistrictKristine G. Baker2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 816072014 WL 2593781Defendants suggested the use of predictive coding to ease the burden of production and meet their production deadline, while opposing party did not agree, they did not request the Court to resolve the dispute.
F.D.I.C. v. Bowden, 4:13-cv-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014).06/06/2014Georgia - Southern DistrictGeorge Smith2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 778902014 WL 2548137Ordering parties to "consider the use of predictive coding."
In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., No 13-md-2437, 88 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 966 (E.D. Pa. May 12, 2014).05/12/2014Pennsylvania - Eastern DistrictBaylson2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 654642014 WL 1909260Suggesting that discovery could benefit from "more sophisticated methodologies" including predictive coding.
Aurora Coop. Elevator Co. v. Aventine Renewable Energy, No 4:12-cv-230 (D. Neb. Mar. 10, 2014).03/10/2014Nebraska - Federal DistrictCheryl R. ZwartCourt ordered parties to "consult with a computer forensic expert to create search protocols, including predictive coding as needed, for a computerized review of the parties' electronic records."
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., 11-cv-6189 DLC, 2014 WL 584300 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2014).02/14/2014New York - Southern DistrictDenise Cote2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191562014 WL 584300Approving the use of predictive coding over objections by opposing counsel.
The New Mexico State Inv. Council v. Bland, No. D-101-cv-2011-01534, 2014 WL 772860 (N.M. Dist. Feb. 12, 2014).02/12/2014New Mexico - Federal DistrictSarah M. Singleton2014 WL 772860"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."
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Decision One Mortg. Co., LLC, No 13 L 5823, 2014 WL 764707 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Jan. 28, 2014).01/28/2014Illinois - Circuit CourtRaymond W. Mitchell2014 WL 764707"If the parties agree that predictive coding would be appropriate in this case, they are encouraged to employ that tool."
In Re Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litig. (In Re Biomet III), No. 3:12-md-2391 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2013).12/10/2013Indiana - Northern DistrictRobert L.MillerRefusing to appoint a special master to handle discovery challenges related to predictive coding.
United States v Education Management, 2:07-cv-00461, ECF 314 (11-24-13).11/23/2013Pennsylvania - Western DistrictTerrence F. McVerry2013 WL 12140442"Predictive coding appears to offer a reasonable means by which Defendants may enhance the efficiency of their discovery efforts."
In Re Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litig. (In Re Biomet II), No. 3:12-md-2391, 2013 WL 6405156 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2013).08/21/2013Indiana - Northern DistrictRobert L.Miller2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1725702013 WL 6405156Refusing to order the producing party to identify seed set documents and how they were coded.
Hinterberger v. Catholic Health Sys., Inc., 08-CV-380S F, 2013 WL 2250603 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013).05/21/2013New York - Western DistrictWilliam M. Skretny2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 731412013 WL 2250603Approving the use of predictive coding and refusing to disqualify shared eDiscovery vendor/consultant.
Gordon v. Kaleida Health, 08-CV-378S, 2013 WL 225056 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013).05/21/2013New York - Western DistrictLeslie G. Foschio2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 733302013 WL 225056Hinterberger related action. Approving the use of predictive coding on top of keywords, and approving the use, by both parties, of a shared ESI consultant (D4 discovery) and declining to order production of seed set methodology.
In Re Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litig. (In Re Biomet I), No. 3:12-md-2391, 2013 WL 1729682 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013).04/23/2013Indiana - Northern DistrictRobert L.Miller2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 844402013 WL 1729682Approving the use of predictive coding on top of keywords and refusing to order a party to "do-over" their keyword searches with predictive coding.
Edwards v. Nat'l Milk Producers Federation, No. 3:11-cv-04766 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 17, 2013).04/16/2013California - Northern DistrictJeffrey S. WhiteApproving the use of predictive coding and the proposed protocol.
Cambridge Place Inv. Mgmt, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley, No. SUCV2010-2741 (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk Mar. 21, 2013).03/21/2013Massachusetts - Superior CourtThomas P. BillingsApproving the use of predictive coding over objections by opposing counsel.
Chevron Corp. v. Donzinger, No. 11cv0691, 2013 WL 1087236 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013).03/14/2013New York - Southern DistrictLewis Kaplan2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 363532013 WL 1087236Urging the parties to analyze "whether and to what extent predictive coding could 'reduce the burden and effort' required to comply with the Subpoena."
Harris v. Subcontracting Concepts, LLC, CIV. 1:12-MC-82 DNH, 2013 WL 951336 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2013).03/11/2013New York - Northern DistrictRandolph R. Treece2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 335932013 WL 951336"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."
EORHB v. HOA Holdings, No. 7409-VCL, 2012 WL 4896670 (Del. Ch. Ct. Oct. 15, 2012).10/15/2012Delaware - Chancery CourtJ. Travis Laster2012 WL 4896670"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.”
Kleen Products v. Packaging Corp. of Am., No. 10 C 5711, 2012 WL 4498465 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2012).08/21/2012Illinois - Northern DistrictNan Nolan2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1396322012 WL 4498465Declining to order a party to "do-over" production with predictive coding.
In re Actos: (Pioglitazone) Prod. Liability Litig., No. 6:11-md-2299, 2012 WL 7861249 (W.D. La. July 27, 2012).07/27/2012Louisiana - Western DistrictRebecca Doherty2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1875192012 WL 7861249Approving the use of predictive coding and discussing workflows.
Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency, No. 10-cv-3488, 877 F. Supp. 2d 87 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).07/13/2012New York - Southern DistrictShira A. Scheindlin2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 978632012 WL 2878130“Parties can (and frequently should) rely on . . . [predictive coding] to identify responsive documents."
Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation, No. CL 61040, 2012 WL 1431215 (Vir. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012).04/23/2012Virginia - Circuit CourtJames H. Chamblin2012 Va. Cir. LEXIS 502012 WL 1431215Endorsing the use of predictive coding over objections by opposing counsel.
Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012).02/24/2012New York - Southern DistrictAndrew J.Peck2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233502012 WL 607412Approving the use of predictive coding.
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-cv- 08637 (ECF 586)01/03/2018Northern District of IllinoisJeffrey T. Gilbert / Maura R. Grossman, Special Master“[W]ithout micromanaging how the producing Party meets its
discovery obligations and without requiring the disclosure of attorney work product
or other privileged information, the Parties will endeavor to be reasonably
transparent regarding the universe of documents subject to targeted collections or
culling via search terms and/or TAR/CAL.”
Triumph Controls UK Ltd & Anor v Primus International Holding Co &Ors, [2018] EWHC 176 (TCC), Case No: HT-2016- 000104 02/07/2018England and Wales High Court (United Kingdom)Hon Mr Justice Coulson“In all those circumstances, therefore, I agree that both the
CAR [Computer Assisted Review] exercise, and the sampling exercise that it
produced, cannot be described as transparent, and cannot be said to be
independently verifiable.”
City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., 3:17-cv-5010708/07/2018Northern District of IllinoisU.S. Magistrate Judge Iain D. Johnston“Many trusted ESI experts – and courts – understandably sing
the praises of TAR, especially its ability to scientifically quantify the successfulness of
gathering and producing relevant documents.”
Entrata v. Yardi Systems, Inc., 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW06/20/2018District of UtahU.S. Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner“Yardi seeks a court order compelling Entrata to produce the
complete methodology and results of Entrata’s TAR process . . . Without more
detailed reasons why production of Entrata’s TAR information is needed, the court is
unwilling to order Entrata to produce such information.”

  • ComplexD

    An excellent and practical resource for considering predictive coding technology.