In Lord Abbett Municipal Income Fund, Inc. v. Asami, No. C-12-03694 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014), the parties were sharing the cost of preserving 159 computers that potentially contained relevant data.  After certain defendants were granted summary judgment, they refused to continue to pay their share of the cost to maintain the computers, but refused to consent to the plaintiff’s disposal of the computers because, they contended, the computers might be needed if the summary judgment was reversed on appeal.  The court first held that it had jurisdiction to consider the issue notwithstanding that a notice of appeal had been filed because, the court held, the discovery matter was only “collateral” to the judgment.  The court then considered whether the plaintiff would be required to preserve the computers under Rule 26(b)(2)’s “proportionality principle.”  The court found that the burden of maintaining the computers outweighed any potential benefit the computers might provide because discovery in the case had long been closed, there was no indication the computers contained relevant information, and the plaintiff offered the defendants an opportunity to examine the computers but the defendants had declined to do so.