In Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, [SDNY 2003], Judge Shira Scheindlin laid out a three-step analysis for evaluating disputes regarding the scope and cost of electronic discovery, including consideration of a seven factor test for determining whether the cost of responding to electronic discovery should be shifted from the producing party to the responding party. First, a court must "thoroughly understand the responding party's computer system, both with respect to active and stored data." For data that is kept in accessible format, the usual rules of discovery apply, but when electronic data is relatively inaccessible, "such as in backup tapes," a court should consider cost-shifting. Second, because cost-shifting is so fact-intensive, Judge Scheindlin explained that it is necessary to determine what data may be found on inaccessible media. Judge Scheindlin emphasized that there must be a factual basis underlying any cost-shifting decision and suggested that requiring a sample restoration would allow for a decision on cost shifting that was "grounded in fact, rather than guesswork." She wrote that "requiring the responding party to restore and produce responsive documents from a small sample of the requested backup tapes is sensible approach in most cases." Third, and finally, in conducting the cost-shifting analysis, the following seven factors should be considered, "weighted more-or-less in the following order:" "(1) the extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information; (2)the availability of such information from other sources; (3)the total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy; (4)the total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party; (5)the relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so; (6)the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; (7)the relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information" (Zubulake, supra at 322).