*10 In the context of discovery, there is a presumption “that the responding party must bear the expense of complying with discovery requests, but he may invoke the district court's discretion ... to grant orders protecting him from ‘undue burden or expense ....‘ “ Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 358 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)); see
Quinby, 245 F.R.D. at 101–02 (same). A district court may therefore issue an order under Rule 26(c) that protects the responding party from undue burden or expense by “conditioning discovery on the requesting party's payment of the costs of discovery.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 358; see
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280, 283 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (“Zubulake III”
). For example, “[i]f the demanding party seeks the preservation of information that is likely to be of only marginal relevance but is costly to retain, then rather than deny a preservation order altogether, a court may condition it upon the requesting party assuming responsibility for part or all of the expense.” Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363, 373 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (citation omitted); see also
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 318 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (“Zubulake I”
) (“The burden or expense of discovery is, in turn, ‘undue’ when it ‘outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.”) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(iii)). The party seeking the cost-shifting bears the burden of establishing good cause for such an order. See
Quinby, 245 F.R.D., at 101 (citing Zubulake III, 216 F.R.D. at 283; Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568, 573 (N.D.Ill.2004)).