During his tenure as a Magistrate Judge, Judge Peck issued more than 1,500 opinions. He also settled numerous cases.

Judge Peck's key eDiscovery opinions are:

  • Fischer v. Forrest, 14 Civ. 1304 & 1307, 2017 WL 773694 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) (Rule 34)
  • Hyles v. New York City, 10 Civ. 3119, 2016 WL 4077114 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016) (requesting party cannot force responding party to use TAR)
  • Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 14 Civ. 3040, 2015 WL 4367250 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015) (appointing TAR Special Master)
  • Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., 306 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (black-letter law that responding party can use TAR)
  • Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (first judicial decision approving use of predictive coding aka TAR), aff'd, 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012)
  • William A. Gross Constr. Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 256 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (keyword search) 
  • In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 179 (S.D.N.Y 2007) (possession, custody or control; spoliation & adverse inference instruction), aff'd, 2007 WL 1518632 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2007)
  • Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 94 Civ. 2120, 1995 WL 649934 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 1995) (discoverability of computerized data)

Representative Intellectual Property Decisions

  • Janik v. SMG Media, Inc., 16 Civ. 7308, 2018 WL 345111 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2018) (denial of defendant's motion for prevailing party attorneys' fees under the Copyright Act)
  • Goldberger Co. v. Uneeda Doll Co., 16 Civ. 4630, 2017 WL 3098110 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2017) (denial of Rule 11 sanctions in trademark and false advertising case)
  • Fischer v. Forrest, 14 Civ. 1304 & 1307, 2017 WL 2992663 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2017), 2017 WL128705 (S.D.N.Y Jan 13, 2017) (granting motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on copyright, trademark, Digital Millennium Copyright Act and false advertising claims)
  • Crown Awards, Inc. v. Trophy Depot, Inc., 15 Civ. 1178, 2017 WL 564885 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017) (denial of Rule 11 sanctions in trademark and false advertising case)
  • Wu v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 14 Civ. 6746, 2015 WL 5254885 (S.D.N.Y. Sept 10, 2015) (copyright infringement claim re photographs in textbooks; statute of limitations and damage issues)
  • Denimafia Inc. v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 12 Civ. 4112, 2014 WL 814532 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2014) (trademark infringement)
  • Mahoney v. Sony Music Entertainment, 12 Civ. 5045, 2013 WL 491526 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2013) (contractual royalty dispute)
  • Toto v. Sony Music Entertainment, 12 Civ. 1434, 2012 WL 6136365 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2012) (contractual royalty dispute)
  • Wi-LAN, Inc. v. LG Elec., Inc., 10 Civ. 432, 2011 WL 3279075 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2011) (patent infringement, claim construction)
  • All-Star Mktg. Group, LLC v. Media Brands Co., 10 Civ. 1764, 2011 WL 9381 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2011) (statutory trademark damages)
  • Burberry Ltd. v. Euro Moda, Inc., 08 Civ. 5781, 2009 WL 4432678 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2009) (statutory trademark damages)
  • Mowry v. Viacom Int'l, Inc., 03 Civ. 3090, 2005 WL 1793773 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2005) (summary judgment in copyright infringement action; no proof of access or striking similarity)
  • Revlon Consumer Prods. Corp. v. Estee Lauder Cos., 00 Civ. 5960, 2003 WL 21751833 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2003) (patent claim construction)