Gallo, William V., United States Magistrate Judge
In this order ruling on Defendant's objection to Plaintiff's Request for Production (RFP), the Court sustained the Defendant's objections on proportionality grounds. In its analysis of Rule 26 and cost-shifting, the court weighed the likely benefit of the discovery against the fact that in the instant litigation the cost of producing exceeded the amount in controversy, and found that the data was inaccessible based on the disproportionate expense of producing it.
The court also cited to cases where court's had ordered "cost-sharing" based on the burden imposed on responding parties.
Another factor the court took into consideration in its decision to sustain Defendant' objections to the five RFPs at issue, was the fact that Defendant had been working to produce documents and information in response to Plaitniff's other discovery requests.
The court conceded that while it was unduly burdensome to order to Defendant to bear to cost of producing the data, that the data could be helpful to the Plaintiff, and therefore gave Plaintiff the option of funding the discovery itself, i.e. shifting the cost burden to Plaintiff if Plaintiff still wanted the data produced despite the disproportionate cost of production
v.
EARL SCHEIB, INC., et al., Defendants
Counsel
Adrienne C. Publicover, Shivani Nanda, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.Cynthia L. Marks, Cynthia L. Marks, Esq., Ben West, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Christopher Wayne Rowlett, Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.