Court Opens Landlord Discovery in Yardi Rent-Pricing Case

On October 13, 2026, Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in In re Yardi Revenue Management Antitrust Litigation, case 2:23-cv-01391, filed as Docket 582. The case began on September 8, 2023, with a complaint by renter McKenna Duffy, and the consolidated complaint alleges that Yardi and landlord defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act through Yardi’s revenue-management software for multifamily rental pricing. The order grants plaintiffs’ motion to unphase discovery, which lifts the temporary stay on discovery against the landlord defendants that the court imposed on March 24, 2025, and lets the parties proceed with the remainder of discovery. The first phase, aimed at Yardi’s software, closed on November 14, 2025.

Yardi’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Count II, which the order says plaintiffs have “unequivocally abandoned,” and otherwise denied without prejudice to renewal after discovery. The court reasoned that Yardi’s arguments do not turn only on its software’s features, and also ask the court to infer what the landlords knew and whether they decided independently, so the record needs to be developed first. The order also denies without prejudice four expert-related motions briefed on the first-phase record, and grants motions to keep limited client and source-code material under seal. The parties owe a joint status report and proposed discovery plan within 28 days, which computes to November 10, 2026.

Some coverage described the ruling as a judge denying Yardi’s summary judgment motion outright. The order is narrower: summary judgment was granted on Count II and denied on the rest without prejudice, and the court wrote that the ruling “expresses no view on the ultimate merits.” The remaining theories, as the order summarizes them, are a hub-and-spoke conspiracy between Yardi and landlords, and an agreement among defendants to exchange competitively sensitive, non-public information through Yardi. Yardi has told the press the allegations are false and that it will defend the case; that is a company statement, not a finding.

The practical shift is who has to produce documents. For three years the case could be read as a question about one vendor’s code. The court has now said that question does not settle the case, and the landlord defendants’ communications, configurations and decisions are in scope. The order records Yardi’s own points: individualized software configurations, client-selected reference rents, clients’ ability to modify or reject recommendations, and no direct use of one client’s confidential data in another client’s output. Those points are about owner-side choices, which is why they now sit in discovery. This is a separate matter from the RealPage litigation, and nothing in the order connects them.

The tool is a pricing-decision log for each multifamily property that uses revenue-management software. Inputs are the software’s weekly or daily recommendations, the rent actually set, who approved or overrode each unit-type change, the stated reason, and the configuration settings in force that week. The output is a per-property table that shows the acceptance rate, every override with its reason, and any configuration change with its date and owner. It is built from the owner’s own exports and approvals, not from a vendor’s dashboard summary.

The reviewer is the regional asset manager, with counsel deciding retention and what the log should and should not capture. The approval gate is that nothing leaves the owner’s systems or is shared with a vendor or another owner without counsel’s sign-off, and the log never contains another landlord’s non-public data. It records the owner’s own decisions and does not assess whether any practice is lawful.