Court Guidance & Case Law
Court Guidance & Case Law
Key decisions and legal themes users should understand before proposing or challenging TAR.
Key TAR Cases and Themes
| Case | Citation | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe | 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) | One of the first federal opinions explicitly approving predictive coding/TAR; useful historical foundation. |
| Global Aerospace Inc. v. Landow Aviation | Va. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012 | Early state-court approval of predictive coding over objection; often cited in TAR history. |
| In re Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation | No. 3:12-MD-2391 (N.D. Ind. 2013) | Important for proportionality, cost, and reasonableness of search methodology. |
| Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A. | 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) | Judge Peck noted TAR had become acceptable in appropriate cases; emphasizes process and cooperation. |
| Hyles v. New York City | No. 10-cv-3119 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) | Court declined to force a producing party to use TAR; useful for party choice and proportionality arguments. |
| Winfield v. City of New York | No. 15-cv-05236 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) | Addresses transparency disputes around seed sets and TAR protocols. |
| In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation | No. 16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill. 2020) | Useful modern example for validation, transparency, and disputes over TAR quality controls. |
How to use case law safely
Treat TAR cases as guideposts, not universal rules. Courts tend to focus less on the brand of tool and more on reasonableness, proportionality, cooperation, validation, transparency appropriate to the case, and whether the process can be explained. Always confirm current law in the relevant jurisdiction.