{"id":"AIBD-0828","title":"A New York federal court approved Axcelerate predictive coding for over three million emails, finding it superior to manual review or keyword searches","summary":"In February 2012 a US magistrate judge approved predictive coding with Recommind's Axcelerate for over three million emails. He found that it was superior to manual review or keyword searches.","date_observed":"2012-02-24","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","benefit_status":"intended","source_collection":null,"source_entry":null,"account":"Five women sued Publicis Groupe and its US subsidiary MSL Group for gender discrimination in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. MSL proposed to cull about three million emails with predictive coding, and the plaintiffs accepted its use in principle. Its protocol named the Axcelerate software by Recommind, trained on seed sets that attorneys code, in up to seven rounds. On 24 February 2012 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the method. He weighed five factors, among them the volume of over three million documents and the superiority of computer-assisted review to manual review or keyword searches. He wrote that the opinion recognizes computer-assisted review as an acceptable way to search for relevant electronically stored information in appropriate cases. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. adopted the rulings in April 2012. The superiority rests on published studies. The review had not run, and the opinion reports no result from it.","category":"benefit created","unexpected":false,"purpose":"Recommind built the Axcelerate software to search and review large document collections, with predictive coding that learns from documents that attorneys code.","system":"Axcelerate software by Recommind (predictive coding)","model_version":null,"developer":"Recommind","deployer":"MSL Group (defendant), with its counsel Jackson Lewis LLP","location":"New York, United States","domain":"Legal services / e-discovery","segment":null,"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost","work_activities":["4.A.2.a.2","4.A.1.a.1"],"taxonomy_note":null,"registry_ids":{},"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":null,"reason":"The review had not run when the court ruled, so the opinion reports no saving for MSL or the plaintiffs."}],"ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court approved the review before it ran. Its view that computer-assisted review is better than manual review or keyword searches rests on published studies, and no result from this review is reported. The protocol describes software trained on seed sets that attorneys code."},"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck). Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), Opinion and Order, 24 February 2012. Caselaw Access Project copy of the Federal Rules Decisions report.","title":"Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), Opinion and Order","url":"https://static.case.law/frd/287/html/0182-01.html","date":"2012-02-24","written_by":"independent","quote":"In this case, the Court determined that the use of predictive coding was appropriate considering: (1) the parties’ agreement, (2) the vast amount of ESI to be reviewed (over three million documents), (3) the superiority of computer-assisted review to the available alternatives (i.e., linear manual review or keyword searches)"}],"replication":{"produced_by":["The parties agreed to use predictive coding and disagreed on parts of the protocol.","Attorneys reviewed a random sample of 2,399 documents to build the seed set that trains the software.","The protocol allowed up to seven training rounds and shared the coding with the plaintiffs' counsel."],"must_hold":["The document collection is large, here over three million emails.","The producing party tests quality and keeps its process transparent to the other side.","The cost of review stays proportionate to what is at stake in the case."],"echoes":[]},"paired_incident":null,"headline":"Federal court approves *Axcelerate* for three million emails","metric":"over three million emails","comparator":{"against":"Linear manual review or keyword searches","before":null,"after":null,"basis":"assumed","quote":"Computer-assisted review appears to be better than the available alternatives, and thus should be used in appropriate cases.","url":"https://static.case.law/frd/287/html/0182-01.html"},"later":{"status":"litigated","date":null,"note":"The plaintiffs objected, and District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. adopted the rulings in April 2012, as Master Matthews recounts in a later English judgment.","quote":"Thus Judge Peck's orders are adopted and Plaintiffs' objections are denied.","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256"},"value":null,"developer_country":"United States","deployer_country":"United States","unrated_because":"The court approved the review before it ran, and the opinion reports no result from it.","brief_notes":null,"brief":null,"revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.","source":"https://static.case.law/frd/287/html/0182-01.html","editor":"AIBD"}],"confidence":"found","shade":"high","claim_status":"Found by a court","claim_basis":"Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","case_jurisdictions":["United States"],"profile":{"case_id":"AIBD-0828","catalog_version":"1.0.0","source_fingerprint":"fab2039c8c20b83cf44f4e34fc86af73fe4b1f5b2bac6709728489df066b59a0","collection_refs":[{"collection_id":"aibd","version":"2026-10-31"},{"collection_id":"querist","version":"2026-10-25"}],"source_ids":["AIBD-0828-source-0001"],"families":{"strategic assessments":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"evaluations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"monetary observations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"institutional decisions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]}},"fields":{"actors[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"developer":"Recommind","deployer":"MSL Group (defendant), with its counsel Jackson Lewis LLP"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["developer","deployer"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"actors[].ownership_control":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_contribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"category":"benefit created","ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court approved the review before it ran. Its view that computer-assisted review is better than manual review or keyword searches rests on published studies, and no result from this review is reported. The protocol describes software trained on seed sets that attorneys code."}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ai_role","category"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].alternatives":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].assessor_date":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].depth":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].display_confidence":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"confidence":"high","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by a court","basis":"Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","interpretation":"Existing display rule preserved; the richer outcome-specific confidence question still needs review."}},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rationale":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review had not run when the court ruled, so the opinion reports no saving for MSL or the plaintiffs."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rubric_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].status_basis":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].target":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review had not run when the court ruled, so the opinion reports no saving for MSL or the plaintiffs."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"availability":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"brief":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_kind":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_links[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_links":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_strength":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by a court"}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0828-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","inferred":false}},"claims[].missingness":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].proposition":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"cross_border_flows[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"decisions[].action_outcome":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].grounds":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].institution_task":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].success_criterion":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"deployment_stage":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"classification":"proposed","answer":"The use was proposed. The court approved the protocol before the predictive coding review ran.","scope":"The period and activity described in the case."}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0828-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"The use was proposed. The court approved the protocol before the predictive coding review ran.","inferred":false}},"economics[].amount":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].costs[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].counterfactual":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].currency_price_basis":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].gross_net":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].measure_type":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].period_unit":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].realization":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].recipient_payer":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].return_payback":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].valuation_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"evaluations[].ai_uplift":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].comparator":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].design":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].effect":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].exposure":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].id":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].measurement_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].metric":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].reproduction_materials":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].setting_sample":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].uncertainty_limitations":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"external_references[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"follow_up[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"later":{"status":"litigated","note":"The plaintiffs objected, and District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. adopted the rulings in April 2012, as Master Matthews recounts in a later English judgment.","quote":"Thus Judge Peck's orders are adopted and Plaintiffs' objections are denied.","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2016/256"}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["later"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"human_oversight":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"id":"AIBD-0828"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["id"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"infrastructure_dependencies[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiaries":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiary_count":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].benefit_type":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].claim":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"Five women sued Publicis Groupe and its US subsidiary MSL Group for gender discrimination in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. MSL proposed to cull about three million emails with predictive coding, and the plaintiffs accepted its use in principle. Its protocol named the Axcelerate software by Recommind, trained on seed sets that attorneys code, in up to seven rounds. On 24 February 2012 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the method. He weighed five factors, among them the volume of over three million documents and the superiority of computer-assisted review to manual review or keyword searches. He wrote that the opinion recognizes computer-assisted review as an acceptable way to search for relevant electronically stored information in appropriate cases. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. adopted the rulings in April 2012. The superiority rests on published studies. The review had not run, and the opinion reports no result from it.","benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].distribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].duration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].id":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].stakeholder_group":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","reason":"The review had not run when the court ruled, so the opinion reports no saving for MSL or the plaintiffs."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].status":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_status":"intended"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_status"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].tradeoffs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].unexpected":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"unexpected":false,"purpose":"Recommind built the Axcelerate software to search and review large document collections, with predictive coding that learns from documents that attorneys code."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["unexpected","purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"places[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"location":"New York, United States","developer_country":"United States","deployer_country":"United States"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["location","developer_country","deployer_country"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"purpose":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"purpose":"Recommind built the Axcelerate software to search and review large document collections, with predictive coding that learns from documents that attorneys code."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"record_dates":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"date_observed":"2012-02-24","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.","source":"https://static.case.law/frd/287/html/0182-01.html","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["date_observed","date_basis","date_precision","revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"replication.attempts[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"replication.conditions":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"replication":{"produced_by":["The parties agreed to use predictive coding and disagreed on parts of the protocol.","Attorneys reviewed a random sample of 2,399 documents to build the seed set that trains the software.","The protocol allowed up to seven training rounds and shared the coding with the plaintiffs' counsel."],"must_hold":["The document collection is large, here over three million emails.","The producing party tests quality and keeps its process transparent to the other side.","The cost of review stays proportionate to what is at stake in the case."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"revision_history[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"revisions":[{"date":"2026-10-31","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.","source":"https://static.case.law/frd/287/html/0182-01.html","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sector":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"domain":"Legal services / e-discovery"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["domain"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].access_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].citation_locator":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck). Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), Opinion and Order, 24 February 2012. Caselaw Access Project copy of the Federal Rules Decisions report.","title":"Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), Opinion and Order","url":"https://static.case.law/frd/287/html/0182-01.html","date":"2012-02-24","written_by":"independent","quote":"In this case, the Court determined that the use of predictive coding was appropriate considering: (1) the parties’ agreement, (2) the vast amount of ESI to be reviewed (over three million documents), (3) the superiority of computer-assisted review to the available alternatives (i.e., linear manual review or keyword searches)"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["AIBD-0828-source-0001"],"role":"Existing evidence items, in their original order"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"sources[].language":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck). Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), Opinion and Order, 24 February 2012. Caselaw Access Project copy of the Federal Rules Decisions report.","title":"Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), Opinion and Order","url":"https://static.case.law/frd/287/html/0182-01.html","date":"2012-02-24","written_by":"independent","quote":"In this case, the Court determined that the use of predictive coding was appropriate considering: (1) the parties’ agreement, (2) the vast amount of ESI to be reviewed (over three million documents), (3) the superiority of computer-assisted review to the available alternatives (i.e., linear manual review or keyword searches)"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].upstream_sources":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"strategic_assessments[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"strategic assessments"},"summary":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"summary":"In February 2012 a US magistrate judge approved predictive coding with Recommind's Axcelerate for over three million emails. He found that it was superior to manual review or keyword searches.","account":"Five women sued Publicis Groupe and its US subsidiary MSL Group for gender discrimination in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. MSL proposed to cull about three million emails with predictive coding, and the plaintiffs accepted its use in principle. Its protocol named the Axcelerate software by Recommind, trained on seed sets that attorneys code, in up to seven rounds. On 24 February 2012 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the method. He weighed five factors, among them the volume of over three million documents and the superiority of computer-assisted review to manual review or keyword searches. He wrote that the opinion recognizes computer-assisted review as an acceptable way to search for relevant electronically stored information in appropriate cases. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. adopted the rulings in April 2012. The superiority rests on published studies. The review had not run, and the opinion reports no result from it."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["summary","account"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].autonomy_permissions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].component_role":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].deployment_configuration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].inputs_outputs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_name":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].product_name":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"system":"Axcelerate software by Recommind (predictive coding)"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["system"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].provider":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"taxonomy_crosswalks[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"title":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"title":"A New York federal court approved Axcelerate predictive coding for over three million emails, finding it superior to manual review or keyword searches","headline":"Federal court approves *Axcelerate* for three million emails"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["title","headline"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"version":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["a66425c5f2cc0521e035ed89facb0ce4197fd39ff82fb1b370cce99b81f8a3eb"],"role":"SHA-256 of the complete public record and its assessments"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"SHA-256 of the public record, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"workflow":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"Five women sued Publicis Groupe and its US subsidiary MSL Group for gender discrimination in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. MSL proposed to cull about three million emails with predictive coding, and the plaintiffs accepted its use in principle. Its protocol named the Axcelerate software by Recommind, trained on seed sets that attorneys code, in up to seven rounds. On 24 February 2012 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the method. He weighed five factors, among them the volume of over three million documents and the superiority of computer-assisted review to manual review or keyword searches. He wrote that the opinion recognizes computer-assisted review as an acceptable way to search for relevant electronically stored information in appropriate cases. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. adopted the rulings in April 2012. The superiority rests on published studies. The review had not run, and the opinion reports no result from it.","replication":{"produced_by":["The parties agreed to use predictive coding and disagreed on parts of the protocol.","Attorneys reviewed a random sample of 2,399 documents to build the seed set that trains the software.","The protocol allowed up to seven training rounds and shared the coding with the plaintiffs' counsel."],"must_hold":["The document collection is large, here over three million emails.","The producing party tests quality and keeps its process transparent to the other side.","The cost of review stays proportionate to what is at stake in the case."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"}},"summary":{"total":91,"addressed":91,"known":28,"reviewed":2,"reviewed_complete":2,"reviewed_partial":0,"record_mapped":26,"review_not_assessed":63,"not_assessed":0,"complete":false,"by_state":{"value_present":28,"not_reported":0,"unresolved":63,"not_assessed":0,"not_applicable":0,"withheld":0,"source_unavailable":0}}},"presentation_version":"0f9c49da137c407145b6380a09cf58d9ba8942d589be39b39fdf3a47e19c01c9"}