In Advanced Tactical Ordinance Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., No. 12-296 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2013), the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to allow direct access to its sales database pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. The court noted that the advisory committee notes to Rule 34 caution that the rule “is not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party’s electronic information system, although such access might be justified in some circumstances.” The court then applied the balancing test under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), and held that although the request for direct access “appears facially intrusive, the benefits of allowing [plaintiff] such direct access, under the circumstances of this case, outweigh the burden of producing it.” The factors that proved determinative in the balancing test were the “highly relevant” nature of the information to the claims in the case and the vagueness of the defendant’s objection that the database contained information about its “business practices” that would harm its “competitive advantage” if disclosed. The court rejected the defendant’s complaint that the database was “its most important asset” and the “vast majority of the product information in the database is irrelevant.” The court held that an agreed protective order with an “attorneys’ eyes only” category would address the defendant’s confidentiality concerns.