“…Turning then to the motion for mirror-imaging, UFFC was particularly concerned that ongoing use of the computer equipment at issue would result in information being overwritten or lost. Defendants objected, arguing that taking mirror-images of their personal computers would be unduly intrusive and would violate the federal rules because discovery had not yet commenced. “Considering the circumstances of this case,” the court disagreed and found mirror-imaging to be “appropriate to maintain the status quo.” The court’s analysis also weighed the benefit and burden of the requested imaging considering 1) the needs of the case, 2) the amount in controversy, 3) the importance of the issues at stake, 4) the potential for finding relevant material, and 5) the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. The court determined that all factors weighed in favor of mirror-imaging. The court also noted plaintiff’s willingness to bear the costs associated with the imaging.”

LINK TO ARTICLE