At issue before the Court was the question of whether the information sought by the Plaintiffs was reasonably accessible within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (as revised) and if not, whether it still should be produced.  First, the Court found that records sought by the Plaintiffs, while stored on a server used by Defendant, were “not readily accessible” within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B), due to the method of storage and lack of an indexing system.  Next, the Court considered whether the Plaintiffs had demonstrated “good cause” to require the production.  The Court, in holding that the Defendant was required to produce the requested information, considered the following factors:

(1) the specificity of the discovery request;  (2) the quantity of information available from other and more easily accessed sources; (3) the failure to produce relevant information that seems likely to have existed but is no longer available on more easily accessed sources; (4) the likelihood of finding relevant, responsive information that cannot be obtained from other, more easily accessed sources; (5) predictions as to the importance and usefulness of the further information; (6) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and (7) the parties resources.

(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 Advisory Committee’s note, to 2006 Amendment).