On August 1, 2016, in Hyles v. New York City, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York declined to force the defendant to use technology assisted review (TAR) during discovery when it preferred to use keyword searching ( (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016)).

Pauline Hyles sued New York City and various city agencies for employment discrimination. During discovery, the parties could not agree on the proper method to review electronically stored information (ESI). Hyles proposed that the City should use TAR because it is more cost effective and efficient than keyword searching. The City declined, citing cost concerns and asserting that, because the parties had a difficult time agreeing on discovery issues, they would not be able to collaborate on the seed set for a TAR process. The parties requested a ruling from the district court.

Citing Sedona Principle 6, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck held that the City, as the responding party, is best suited to decide how to produce responsive ESI and can use the search method of its choice. The standard is not perfection, but whether the search results are reasonable and proportional. Hyles cited no authority to support her request to force the City to use TAR, and the court declined to do so.

Although he decided against forcing the City to use TAR, Judge Peck noted that: