In ERISA case, plaintiffs proposed e-mail discovery protocol with defined time period and subject matter, (including a list of around twenty specific search terms), yet fairly undefined core individuals. A U.S. Magistrate Judge sitting in the District of Kansas notes that, while “Plaintiffs also argue that defendants have failed to show an undue burden because: (1) the number of individuals with e-mail on their individual hard drive is unknown, (2) the number of files is unknown; and (3) the number and size of the e-mail for targeted individuals is unknown…. It is precisely because there are ‘unknowns’ that plaintiffs’ request imposes a greater burden on defendants.” The court then directs the parties to answer several questions: (1) How many persons are covered by plaintiffs’ e-mail search protocol? (2) Although Boeing has estimated the amount of hours to locate and search for e-mail, what is the estimated cost? (3) Exactly what are the ‘benefits of discovery’ that plaintiffs reference? (4) Does the number of search terms materially increase the cost? (5) Should the costs of electronic discovery be borne by plaintiffs? (6) Is there a more efficient method for discovery than electronic searches? (7) What computer resources or expertise did plaintiffs rely on in formulating a search protocol? If the information is produced, how will plaintiffs’ process the data? Regarding the 2006 Amendments, the court notes that: “Rule 26(b)(2) was amended effective December 1, 2006 to address electronic discovery. The limitations described in parts (I), (ii), and (iii) remain unchanged.” See Apsley v. Boeing Co.,No. 05-1368, 2007 WL 163201 (D.Kan. Jan. 18, 2007).