{"id":"AIBD-0981","title":"A New York federal court approved Rio Tinto and Vale's agreed TAR protocol and stressed that TAR must face no higher standard than manual review","summary":"In March 2015 a US magistrate judge approved the predictive coding protocol that Rio Tinto and Vale had agreed. He wrote that TAR must face no higher standard than keywords or manual review.","date_observed":"2015-03-02","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","benefit_status":"intended","source_collection":null,"source_entry":null,"account":"Rio Tinto sued Vale and others in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The two companies agreed on a protocol for predictive coding and asked the court to approve it. Rio Tinto would use Relativity Assisted Review through its vendor Precision Discovery. Vale would use Deloitte's Dynamic Review, which classifies documents with the LibLinear library. Each side would check its review against a random control set and disclose estimated recall and precision. Before production, each would sample the documents marked likely non-responsive. On 2 March 2015 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the protocol. He wrote that it is now black letter law that courts permit a producing party to use TAR. He stressed that holding TAR to a higher standard than keywords or manual review deters its use, because motion practice can cost more than TAR saves. He noted that the protocol came from the parties' agreement and was somewhat vague and generic. The court tested neither tool, and the review had not run.","category":"benefit created","unexpected":false,"purpose":"Relativity built Relativity Assisted Review and Deloitte built Dynamic Review to sort documents as likely responsive or not, learning from the coding that lawyers give to samples.","system":"Relativity Assisted Review (Rio Tinto) and Deloitte's Dynamic Review (Vale), under a stipulated predictive coding protocol","model_version":null,"developer":"Relativity (Relativity Assisted Review) and Deloitte (Dynamic Review), as the parties' letter attached to the opinion names the tools","deployer":"Rio Tinto plc (plaintiff), with its vendor Precision Discovery, and Vale S.A. (defendant)","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 approved the protocol, so the opinion reports no saving or accuracy for either company."}],"ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court approved a protocol that the parties had agreed and tested neither tool. The opinion reports no result from the review. The parties' letter describes models built from the coding of a review team, one of them on the LibLinear classification library."},"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck). Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), Opinion and Order of 2 March 2015, with the parties' letter and stipulated protocol attached as an appendix. Caselaw Access Project copy of the Federal Rules Decisions report.","title":"Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), Opinion and Order","url":"https://static.case.law/frd/306/html/0125-01.html","date":"2015-03-02","written_by":"independent","quote":"The Court is approving the parties' TAR protocol, but notes that it was the result of the parties' agreement, not Court order."}],"replication":{"produced_by":["Rio Tinto and Vale agreed on a predictive coding protocol and asked the court to approve it.","Each responding party reviews a random control set, trains the software on seed and training sets and discloses estimated recall and precision.","Before production, each party reviews a sample of the documents that the software marks likely non-responsive and discloses the implied recall."],"must_hold":["The parties disclose to each other the non-privileged documents in their control, seed and training sets.","Samples are large enough for a margin of error of plus or minus 2% at the 95% confidence level.","The court holds TAR to no higher standard than keywords or manual review."],"echoes":[]},"paired_incident":null,"headline":"Federal court approves a *TAR* protocol agreed by Rio Tinto and Vale","metric":null,"comparator":{"against":"Keyword searches or manual review","before":null,"after":null,"basis":"assumed","quote":"it is inappropriate to hold TAR to a higher standard than keywords or manual review. Doing so discourages parties from using TAR for fear of spending more in motion practice than the savings from using TAR for review.","url":"https://static.case.law/frd/306/html/0125-01.html"},"later":null,"value":null,"developer_country":"United States (Relativity); not verified for Deloitte","deployer_country":"United Kingdom and Brazil","unrated_because":"The court approved an agreed protocol before any review ran, and the opinion reports no result from it.","brief_notes":null,"brief":null,"revisions":[{"date":"2026-11-01","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/306/html/0125-01.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-0981","catalog_version":"1.0.0","source_fingerprint":"3bb0dde59c5c333568dfda2e5a645937b74fa1a6e746fda02081b5a697db4832","collection_refs":[{"collection_id":"aibd","version":"2026-10-31"},{"collection_id":"querist","version":"2026-10-25"}],"source_ids":["AIBD-0981-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":"Relativity (Relativity Assisted Review) and Deloitte (Dynamic Review), as the parties' letter attached to the opinion names the tools","deployer":"Rio Tinto plc (plaintiff), with its vendor Precision Discovery, and Vale S.A. (defendant)"}},"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 a protocol that the parties had agreed and tested neither tool. The opinion reports no result from the review. The parties' letter describes models built from the coding of a review team, one of them on the LibLinear classification library."}}},"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 approved the protocol, so the opinion reports no saving or accuracy for either company."}]}},"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 approved the protocol, so the opinion reports no saving or accuracy for either company."}]}},"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-0981-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 either company ran its review.","scope":"The period and activity described in the case."}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0981-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"The use was proposed. The court approved the protocol before either company ran its review.","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":"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"},"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-0981"}},"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":"Rio Tinto sued Vale and others in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The two companies agreed on a protocol for predictive coding and asked the court to approve it. Rio Tinto would use Relativity Assisted Review through its vendor Precision Discovery. Vale would use Deloitte's Dynamic Review, which classifies documents with the LibLinear library. Each side would check its review against a random control set and disclose estimated recall and precision. Before production, each would sample the documents marked likely non-responsive. On 2 March 2015 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the protocol. He wrote that it is now black letter law that courts permit a producing party to use TAR. He stressed that holding TAR to a higher standard than keywords or manual review deters its use, because motion practice can cost more than TAR saves. He noted that the protocol came from the parties' agreement and was somewhat vague and generic. The court tested neither tool, and the review had not run.","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 approved the protocol, so the opinion reports no saving or accuracy for either company."}]}},"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":"Relativity built Relativity Assisted Review and Deloitte built Dynamic Review to sort documents as likely responsive or not, learning from the coding that lawyers give to samples."}},"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 (Relativity); not verified for Deloitte","deployer_country":"United Kingdom and Brazil"}},"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":"Relativity built Relativity Assisted Review and Deloitte built Dynamic Review to sort documents as likely responsive or not, learning from the coding that lawyers give to samples."}},"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":"2015-03-02","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","revisions":[{"date":"2026-11-01","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/306/html/0125-01.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":["Rio Tinto and Vale agreed on a predictive coding protocol and asked the court to approve it.","Each responding party reviews a random control set, trains the software on seed and training sets and discloses estimated recall and precision.","Before production, each party reviews a sample of the documents that the software marks likely non-responsive and discloses the implied recall."],"must_hold":["The parties disclose to each other the non-privileged documents in their control, seed and training sets.","Samples are large enough for a margin of error of plus or minus 2% at the 95% confidence level.","The court holds TAR to no higher standard than keywords or manual review."],"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":"2026-11-01","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/306/html/0125-01.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). Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), Opinion and Order of 2 March 2015, with the parties' letter and stipulated protocol attached as an appendix. Caselaw Access Project copy of the Federal Rules Decisions report.","title":"Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), Opinion and Order","url":"https://static.case.law/frd/306/html/0125-01.html","date":"2015-03-02","written_by":"independent","quote":"The Court is approving the parties' TAR protocol, but notes that it was the result of the parties' agreement, not Court order."}]}},"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-0981-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). Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), Opinion and Order of 2 March 2015, with the parties' letter and stipulated protocol attached as an appendix. Caselaw Access Project copy of the Federal Rules Decisions report.","title":"Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), Opinion and Order","url":"https://static.case.law/frd/306/html/0125-01.html","date":"2015-03-02","written_by":"independent","quote":"The Court is approving the parties' TAR protocol, but notes that it was the result of the parties' agreement, not Court order."}]}},"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 March 2015 a US magistrate judge approved the predictive coding protocol that Rio Tinto and Vale had agreed. He wrote that TAR must face no higher standard than keywords or manual review.","account":"Rio Tinto sued Vale and others in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The two companies agreed on a protocol for predictive coding and asked the court to approve it. Rio Tinto would use Relativity Assisted Review through its vendor Precision Discovery. Vale would use Deloitte's Dynamic Review, which classifies documents with the LibLinear library. Each side would check its review against a random control set and disclose estimated recall and precision. Before production, each would sample the documents marked likely non-responsive. On 2 March 2015 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the protocol. He wrote that it is now black letter law that courts permit a producing party to use TAR. He stressed that holding TAR to a higher standard than keywords or manual review deters its use, because motion practice can cost more than TAR saves. He noted that the protocol came from the parties' agreement and was somewhat vague and generic. The court tested neither tool, and the review had not run."}},"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":"Relativity Assisted Review (Rio Tinto) and Deloitte's Dynamic Review (Vale), under a stipulated predictive coding protocol"}},"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 Rio Tinto and Vale's agreed TAR protocol and stressed that TAR must face no higher standard than manual review","headline":"Federal court approves a *TAR* protocol agreed by Rio Tinto and Vale"}},"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":["6d97d92f7839edd7cfe25ddec33b53f9a8d815785386c86f6153599aab3fbc67"],"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":"Rio Tinto sued Vale and others in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The two companies agreed on a protocol for predictive coding and asked the court to approve it. Rio Tinto would use Relativity Assisted Review through its vendor Precision Discovery. Vale would use Deloitte's Dynamic Review, which classifies documents with the LibLinear library. Each side would check its review against a random control set and disclose estimated recall and precision. Before production, each would sample the documents marked likely non-responsive. On 2 March 2015 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck approved the protocol. He wrote that it is now black letter law that courts permit a producing party to use TAR. He stressed that holding TAR to a higher standard than keywords or manual review deters its use, because motion practice can cost more than TAR saves. He noted that the protocol came from the parties' agreement and was somewhat vague and generic. The court tested neither tool, and the review had not run.","replication":{"produced_by":["Rio Tinto and Vale agreed on a predictive coding protocol and asked the court to approve it.","Each responding party reviews a random control set, trains the software on seed and training sets and discloses estimated recall and precision.","Before production, each party reviews a sample of the documents that the software marks likely non-responsive and discloses the implied recall."],"must_hold":["The parties disclose to each other the non-privileged documents in their control, seed and training sets.","Samples are large enough for a margin of error of plus or minus 2% at the 95% confidence level.","The court holds TAR to no higher standard than keywords or manual review."],"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":27,"reviewed":2,"reviewed_complete":2,"reviewed_partial":0,"record_mapped":25,"review_not_assessed":64,"not_assessed":0,"complete":false,"by_state":{"value_present":27,"not_reported":0,"unresolved":64,"not_assessed":0,"not_applicable":0,"withheld":0,"source_unavailable":0}}},"presentation_version":"e8e15993219048e5cef733cfec37b62498763a621e32fda9401b9044b2243847"}