In a civil case seeking relief under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, (18 U.S.C. 1030), the plaintiff sought a “mirror-image” copy of the defendants’ relevant hard drives. Based on affidavits alleging an “undue cost” to copy the drives, recover deleted information, and translate it into searchable and reviewable formats, the court determined that the data was not “reasonably accessible”. Concluding, nevertheless, that there was “good cause” to compel production, the court set forth a three-step process: First, plaintiff selects a computer forensics expert, who executes a confidentiality agreement; defendants make available to the expert, at their places of business or residences, all of the relevant computer equipment, for duplication. Then, once the expert has created copies and images of defendants’ hard drives, the expert recovers all available word-processing documents, incoming and outgoing emails, PowerPoint presentations, spreadsheets, and other files, including those that were “deleted,” and provides the recovered documents in a reasonably convenient and searchable form to defense counsel. Finally, within twenty days of the receipt of the recovered documents and data, defendants’ counsel produces all responsive and non-privileged documents, and provides a privilege log. As to cost-shifting, the plaintiff did not object to incurring the costs for creating the mirror images, recovering the information, and translating the information into searchable formats. See Ameriwood Industries v. Liberman, No.4:06-524, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D.Mo. Dec. 27, 2006).