This court agrees with other courts which have held that discovery and forensic examination of an adversary's computer is generally disallowed at least in the absence of any showing that the adversary would not search the computer for relevant documents and produce them in paper form. In Olah v. Brooklawn Country Club,
Docket No. CV06-4007321S, Superior Court, Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford (November 5, 2007, Ronan, J.), 2007WL 4111410, 44 Conn. L. Rptr. 413, the court sustained an employee's objection to the defendant-employer's request to examine the plaintiff's computer, saying that “... courts are reluctant to grant a party access to an opposing party's personal computer.” Id.
at *2. The case cited by Judge Ronan is Geer v. The Gilman Corp.,
United States District Court, Docket No. 3:06 CV 889 (D.Conn. February 2, 2007, holding that defendant may not investigate plaintiff's computer because such action would be overly drastic under the circumstances. Federal and state courts outside Connecticut are in accord. See, Scotts Co. LLC v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-899 (June 12, 2007, USDC, S.D. Ohio) 2007 WL 1723509 (“This court is therefore loathe to sanction intrusive examination of an opponent's computer as a matter of course, or on the mere suspicion that the opponent may be withholding discoverable information”); Williams v. Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 144, 146 (D.Mass.2005 (denying motion to appoint computer forensic expert because moving party failed to present any “credible evidence that Defendants are unwilling to produce computer-generated documents”); Bethea v. Comcast, 218 F.R.D. 328, 329-30, (D.D.C.2003) (denying motion to compel because “[i]n the context of computer systems and computer records, inspection or seizure is not permitted unless the moving party can demonstrate that the documents they seek to compel do, in fact, exist and are being unlawfully withheld”); In Re Ford Motor Company, 345 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir.2003) (Mandamus granted directing District Court to vacate an order allowing tort claimant direct access to Ford Motor Co. databases.); and Holland v. Barfield,
Case No. 5D09-3828 (Florida App. May 7, 2010) where the Florida court specifically reversed an order allowing for unrestricted access to a computer and cell phone.