*7 In light of the cost-benefit balancing factors stated in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C), which direct the Court to “limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if, inter alia,
“the discovery sought ... can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,” the parties are directed as follows: To the extent that documents related to Asset Items 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are in Defendant's actual possession or custody, Defendant must produce them. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). If the related documents are not in Defendant's actual possession or custody, but are in the physical custody of a non-party financial institution, and may be obtained at no greater cost by either Plaintiff or Defendant, Defendant will not be compelled to produce them. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Rather, Plaintiff may obtain the documents by issuing a Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 subpoena to the non-party financial institution. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(c) (“As provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents.”); DataQuick Info. Sys., Inc., 237 F.R.D. at 564 (“With regard to non-parties, Rule 34(c) contemplates that they may be required to produce documents through the use of a subpoena issued under Rule 45 .”). If, however, the cost of obtaining the documents would be greater for Plaintiff than Defendant, Defendant must obtain the documents and make them available to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff seeks “hard copy” production of the documents, Defendant may charge Plaintiff a reasonable amount for photocopies. See
Mezu, 269 F.R.D. at 575. Thus, with regard to Asset Items 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, subject to the specific directions stated above.