Can a court order cost-shifting or limit search terms when keyword searches return an unmanageable hit count?

Yes. In U.S. federal civil litigation, courts have broad authority to manage the scope and cost of discovery, and an unmanageable keyword hit count is a classic trigger for that authority. Two related tools come into play: limiting or refining search terms, and shifting some or all of the search costs to the requesting party. How and whether they apply depends heavily on the jurisdiction, the facts, and the discretion of the presiding judge.

Proportionality Is the Anchor

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure direct that discovery be proportional to the needs of the case. Courts weigh factors such as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to information, the resources of each party, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. A search that returns hundreds of thousands of marginally relevant hits can be deemed disproportionate, giving the court grounds to intervene.

Limiting or Refining Search Terms

Courts routinely require parties to cooperate on search methodology. When terms are overbroad, a judge may order the parties to:

• Narrow or add qualifiers to terms, use phrases instead of single words, or apply date and custodian limits.
• Test terms through sampling to estimate precision and the proportion of relevant results.
• Meet and confer to negotiate a defensible protocol before motion practice.

The Sedona Conference has published influential, non-binding guidance encouraging this cooperative, iterative approach to search and review.

When Courts Shift Costs

The default expectation is that a responding party bears its own production costs. But where discovery is unusually burdensome or seeks marginally relevant material, courts may shift part of the cost to the requester, often as a condition of allowing the broader search to proceed. Cost-shifting is the exception, not the rule, and judges typically reserve it for genuinely disproportionate demands.

Practical Takeaways

Document your search methodology, propose reasonable limits early, and raise proportionality before a dispute escalates. Outcomes vary widely by court, and state courts and other countries follow different rules.

Learn more about related concepts at /topics/ediscovery/.