In AtHome Care, Inc. v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 12-053 (D. Idaho Apr. 30, 2013), the court ordered the defendant to produce metadata associated with electronic documents that it had already produced. The court held that “[a]lthough metadata is not addressed directly in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is subject to the same general rules of discovery.” Metadata is “subject to the balancing test of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which requires courts to weight the probative value of proposed discovery against its potential burden.” The court found that the burden of producing the metadata in this case was not “all that great” because the plaintiff had limited the metadata request to only two types of documents. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the metadata was not relevant because the plaintiff’s underlying merits claim was weak, holding “this is not summary judgment” and the broader standards of discoverable information under Rule 26 applied.