http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1182935154681.

I recommend you read the whole article, but here are a few excerpts from Boehning and Toal:

“Although the new Rule 26(b)(2)(B) now explicitly acknowledges that “conditions” can be imposed on the discovery of inaccessible data, neither it nor any other rule states, explicitly or implicitly, that cost-shifting or other conditions cannot be considered when accessible data is at issue. Indeed, since courts clearly retain the discretion to deny discovery outright under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), it stands to reason that they necessarily have the lesser power to condition production on the requesting party’s payment of the costs of production.”

“Perhaps most persuasively, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, chair of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that crafted the amendments, also recently addressed this specific issue and reached the same conclusion. In discussing the amended Rule 26, he stated that “[t]he amended rule does not say that judges may only consider cost allocation if … the electronically stored information is not reasonably accessible. … Nor does the amended rule preclude producing parties from seeking to shift costs of producing electronically stored information that is reasonably accessible. Lee H. Rosenthal, “A Few Thoughts on Electronic Discovery After December 1, 2006,” 116 Yale L.J. POCKET PART 167, 180-81 (2006).”

“In these circumstances, a district court should have the discretion to entertain either an outright limitation on the scope of the search under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) or a cost-shifting protective order under Rule 26(c). In the words of a leading treatise on federal practice, “it is not self-evident that every discovery request of electronically stored information on accessible active databases will not entail undue costs and burdens, solely because they are on an active database,” and therefore “cost-shifting may be appropriate” even when accessible data is sought. MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE §37A.36 (2007).”