In Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Earl Scheib, Inc., No. 11-0788 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6., 2013), the district court granted a defendant’s motion for a protective order quashing five requests for production that called for a burdensome review of email. The defendant supported its motion with a “statement of work” from an e-discovery vendor detailing the expenses that would be required to respond to the requests. The vendor’s estimated expenses were approximately the same amount as the entire damages claim in the case. The court held that “[a]lthough some of the information Plaintiff request may be helpful, the cost-benefit analysis does not justify spending that amount of money on these five [requests]….” The court concluded that the plaintiff could, at its option, “perform its own cost-benefit analysis and determine whether it wants to fund the discovery,” but that the defendant would not be required to perform the searches at its own expense.