In what would appear to be a fact-specific case, based on an extensive evidentiary record, Judge Fogel, sitting in the Northern District of California, affirmed a Magistrate’s order which granted in part and denied in part class action plaintiffs’ motion to compel.  The defendant, e-Bay, objected to the magistrate’s order on the basis that it would need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to dedicate a technical engineer for a period of more than six months in order to create data solely for this litigation. Looking to Rule 34(a)(1)(A) and the Advisory Committee Notes, the Court stated that: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly contemplate the production of information from dynamic databases.” After engaging in a cost-benefit analysis re undue burden under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the Court noted that “Plaintiffs contend that the data eBay has provided thus far does not cover the entire class period and is aggregate data rather than the raw data needed to create the statistical models necessary for their case” and affirmed the “scaled back” production previously ordered by the magistrate.  In re EBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, No.07-1882, 2009 WL 3613511 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 28, 2009).