Use of Predictive Coding was “Reasonable Inquiry,” Motion to Compel Additional Discovery Denied
Dynamo Holdings Ltd. P’ship v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 2685-11, 8393-12, 2016 WL 4204067 (T.C. July 13, 2016)
In September 2014, the court approved Petitioners’ use of predictive coding to identify potentially responsive and privileged data contained on two backup tapes, despite Respondent’s objection that the technology was “unproven.” (Read a summary of that opinion here.) At that time, the court indicated that Respondent could move to compel additional discovery in the event he believed that Petitioners’ response was insufficient. Accordingly, after Petitioners denied Respondent’s request for production of additional documents containing certain specified search hits, Respondent moved to compel. Concluding that Petitioners’ reliance on predictive coding satisfied the requirement for a “reasonable inquiry,” the court denied the motion.