The District Court overruled objections to the Magistrate’s Order in Columbia Pictures v. Bunnelli, No.06-1093 (C.Cal. May 29, 2007). Defendants sought to impose on the definition of “stored” in Rule 34 an additional requirement that the information be, not just stored, but stored “for later retrieval.”  Judge Cooper agreed with the Magistrate Judge that this was too narrow under the Rule. “In response to amici’s concerns over the potentially devastating impact of this decision on the record-keeping obligations of businesses and individuals, the Court notes that this decision does not impose an additional burden on any website operator or party outside of this case. It simply requires that the defendants in this case, as part of this litigation, after the issuance of a court order, and following a careful evaluation of the burden to these defendants of preserving and producing the specific information requested in light of its relevance and the lack of other available means to obtain it, begin preserving and subsequently produce a particular subset of the data in RAM under Defendants’ control.” See Columbia Pictures v. Bunnelli, 245 F.R.D. 443 (D.Cal. 2007).