Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
March 2, 2015, Decided
14 Civ. 3042 (RMB)(AJP)
[*126] OPINION & ORDER
Predictive Coding a.k.a. Computer Assisted Review a.k.a. Technology Assisted Review (TAR) -Da Silva Moore Revisited
ANDREW J. PECK, United States Magistrate Judge:
It has been three years since my February 24, 2012 decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Grp., 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Peck, M.J.), affd, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58742, 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012). In Da Silva Moore, I stated:
This judicial opinion now recognizes that computer-assisted review [i.e., TAR] is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.
Da Silva Moore, 287 F.R.D. at 183. I note that while the terms predictive coding and computer assisted review still are used, technology assisted review, or TAR, now seems to be the preferred term of art. I concluded the Da Silva Moore opinion by stating:
This Opinion appears to be the first in which a Court has approved of the use of computer-assisted review. That does not mean computer-assisted review must be used in all cases, or that the exact ESI protocol approved here will be appropriate in all future cases that utilize computer-assisted review. Nor does this Opinion endorse any vendor . . . , nor any particular computer-assisted review tool. What the Bar should take away from this Opinion is that ] computer-assisted [**3] review is an available tool and should be seriously considered for use in large-data-volume cases where it may save the producing party (or both parties) significant amounts of legal fees in document review. Counsel no longer have to worry about being the "first" or "guinea pig" for judicial acceptance of computer-assisted review. As with keywords or any other technological solution to ediscovery, counsel must design an appropriate [*127] process, including use of available technology, with appropriate quality control testing, to review and produce relevant ESI while adhering to Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) proportionality. Computer-assisted review now can be considered judicially-approved for use in appropriate cases.
Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Grp., 287 F.R.D. at 193 (emphasis added).Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
306 F.R.D. 125 *; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24996 **; 2015 WL 872294
RIO TINTO PLC, Plaintiff, -against- VALE S.A., et al., Defendants.
Prior History: Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174336 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2014)
coding, documents, Predictive, parties, seed, protocol, discovery, requesting party, Universe, training, disputes, disclose, non-responsive, keyword, cases, Software, number of documents, computer-assisted, transparency, Validation, producing, non-privileged, categorize, technology, requests, Culling, confer, terms, margin of error, Statistically
Civil Procedure, Discovery, Electronic Discovery, General Overview