Barrera v. Boughton, 2010 WL 3926070 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2010)
Note: This is not a Missouri case, but would have relevance in federal cases in federal court in Missouri.
Despite diligent efforts, the parties were unable to reach agreement regarding the appropriate scope of a search for responsive information. Plaintiffs proposed 40 custodians, 80 search terms, and a timeframe of nearly seven years. Defendants sought a phased approach and proposed limiting the initial search to three custodians, with plaintiffs to bear the cost. Defendants also objected to the temporal scope of discovery. Citing Rule 26(b)(2)(B), the court found the information sought “not reasonably accessible” and reduced the scope of the search, but denied defendants’ motion to shift costs.
Plaintiffs moved to compel the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) stored on defendants’ server, using their proposed parameters. Defendants objected that the proposal was unduly burdensome and presented the declarations of two IT experts opining that the cost of the proposed search (not including attorney review) would be approximately $60,000. Accordingly, defendants proposed to significantly reduce the scope of the search, and to shift their costs.