Court lets Bridgestone use predictive coding over IBM's objection

In July 2014 a US magistrate judge let Bridgestone review over two million documents with predictive coding, over IBM's objection. He cited Rule 26's call for efficient, cost-effective discovery.

  • Not rated an organization

    The review had not run when the court ruled, and the order states no saving.

Depth runs from 1, a convenience or time saved, to 5, a life or a livelihood preserved.

Status
Intended benefit.
Evidence

foundstudiedreportedclaimed

An independent court document supports the benefit.

The system’s part
Not isolated. The court allowed predictive coding before the review ran and did not test it. The order mentions seed documents used to set up the software, which implies training on coded examples. It says nothing more about how the software works.
Later
Challenged, 5 February 2015. In January 2015 the parties told the court that some seed set documents listed as nonresponsive were in fact responsive, and the magistrate judge reminded both sides that he expected full transparency. A later opinion in another case recounts this.
Not yet checked
LimitsCosts and harmsLearns from data

Download data Cite Suggest a correction

Benefit type
Reduced Task Cost
System
Predictive coding
Made by
Not named in the order
Used by
Bridgestone Americas, Inc. (plaintiff), with its attorneys, experts and the companies doing the work
Where
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
Stage
Proposed
Date
, when the source was published
Kind
Benefit created
Broad benefit
Processing Information, Getting Information
Collections
Scrutiny and findings
Last revised
1 November 2026

Sources

  1. Court document, by authors with no tie to the system.

    United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown). Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 3:13-1196, Order (Doc. 89), 22 July 2014. CourtListener RECAP copy of the filed order.

    The Magistrate Judge will permit Plaintiff to use predictive coding on the documents that they have presently identified, based on the search terms Defendant provided.

Details

AI system

Workflow

Bridgestone first screened its documents with search terms that IBM had provided. Bridgestone offered to share the seed documents that it used to set up predictive coding.

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

Bridgestone stays open and transparent about how it uses predictive coding. The parties confer often through their attorneys, experts and the companies doing the work. The case schedule can absorb a later date for the first production.

Entry details

Sector

Legal services / e-discovery.

Purpose

A vendor that the order does not name built the predictive coding software to rank documents for responsiveness, starting from seed documents that reviewers code.

31 more questions not yet checked

model, release, provider, role, configuration, inputs and outputs, autonomy, human oversight, AI contribution, beneficiaries, reach, distribution and access, duration, every measurement question, every money question, ownership and control, dependencies, cross-border connections, geopolitical implications, replication attempts, availability, institutional decision, grounds, action and result, success criterion, every evidence question, observed or intended, alternative assessments, related entries, other identifiers, category mappings.

Cite this record

Peter H. Vartanian. (2026). Court lets Bridgestone use predictive coding over IBM's objection (AIBD-0983). Artificial Intelligence Benefits Database, edition of 1 November 2026. https://petervartanian.xyz/aibd/records/AIBD-0983.html (archived at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AADSII, version 7.0)

BibTeX Data Field definitions