In fact, Defendants have produced no evidence of undue burden or expense and have

failed to even articulate a basis for shifting costs associated with the remaining 38 of e.Digital’s

39 discovery requests. Defendants have done nothing more than submit wholly unsubstantiated,

boilerplate arguments related to relevance, undue burden, and unspecified costs associated with

responding to e.Digital’s requests. Such a showing is simply not enough. See Adv. Microtherm,

Inc. v. Norman Wright Mech. Equip. Corp., C 04-2266 JW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57764, at *6-

7 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2010) (refusing to shift discovery costs where party failed to present

competent evidence of amount of expenses it reasonably incurred in connection with the

document production at issue). If it were, Rule 26(b)(2)(B) would have no teeth because any

party in any case could make these same arguments and meet the Defendants’ purported standard

for shifting discovery costs. To shift costs on this basis, with nothing more, ignores the

procedures set forth in the Federal Rules and reverses the presumption that the costs of discovery

are to be borne by the responding party. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309,

320 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“In order to maintain the presumption that the responding party pays, the

cost-shifting analysis must be neutral; close calls should be resolved in favor of the

presumption.”). The Magistrate Judge improperly relied on Defendants’ unsupported assertions

of undue burden and expense in making a decision which is simply contrary to the law.