## Facts

- Bridgestone Americas, Inc. (Bridgestone) and International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) were engaged in federal litigation.
- Discovery involved more than two million documents of potentially relevant electronically stored information (ESI).
- A court e-discovery order required the parties to use keyword searches to screen the ESI and create a post-search review set.
- After the initial keyword sweep, Bridgestone sought permission to analyze the keyword-search results using predictive coding (technology-assisted review, or TAR) as a review tool.
- IBM objected, arguing it was unfair to change screening/review methods after discovery had progressed because IBM had already manually reviewed more than one-third of the keyword-search results.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should permit Bridgestone to use predictive coding to review ESI after the parties had already applied keyword searches under the existing e-discovery order.
2. Whether allowing predictive coding at that stage would be unfair or prejudicial to IBM given IBM’s ongoing or completed manual review efforts.
3. What discovery-management approach best fit Rule 26’s focus on reasonable and cost-effective discovery in light of the volume of ESI.

## Decision

- The court granted Bridgestone’s request to use predictive coding on the set of documents identified through the keyword-search process.
- The court treated the dispute as a discovery-management question governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than as an issue affecting the merits of the parties’ claims.
- The court rejected IBM’s objection that it would be improper or unfair to permit predictive coding after manual review had already begun under the keyword-based protocol.

## Legal Principles

- Courts have broad discretion under Rule 26 to manage discovery methods for large ESI collections and to allow reasonable procedures aimed at controlling burden and expense.
- Predictive coding (TAR) is an acceptable method for reviewing documents for responsiveness when used as part of a reasonable discovery plan.
- The fact that one party has already invested resources in manual review does not, by itself, bar the other party from using a different reasonable review method, particularly where the dispute concerns how to review a defined collection produced by agreed screening steps (such as keyword searching).
- Discovery orders and protocols may be adjusted when the requested change is directed to efficient review and does not materially impair the opposing party’s ability to obtain responsive, nonprivileged information.

## Conclusion

Bridgestone Americas v. IBM holds that, in managing large-scale ESI discovery, a federal court may allow a party to apply predictive coding to a keyword-culled document population even after manual review has started, treating the choice of review technology as a Rule 26 case-management decision and rejecting generalized unfairness objections based on the opposing party’s prior review efforts.


Bridgestone Americas v. International Business Machines Corp., 2014 WL 4923014 (2014)