Finding the Requested Information Relevant and Defendant’s Cost Estimates “Greatly Exaggerated,” Court Grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2009 WL 2168892 (D. Kan. July 21, 2009)
This matter was before the court on plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”). Previously, the court denied a motion to compel without prejudice for reasons including plaintiffs’ failure to establish the relevance of the material requested and defendant’s estimated cost to comply and directed the parties to address recently enacted Fed. R. Evid. 502 in any future discussions of production and costs. The parties were unable to reach agreement regarding production, and plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to compel. Upon finding that plaintiffs had established the relevance of the material requested and that defendant’s estimated costs of production were “greatly exaggerated,” the court granted the motion.