Eric DEAN, Plaintiff, v. PRICELINE.COM, INC., Defendant No. 3:00CV1273 (DJS) United States District Court, D. Connecticut September 10, 2002 Counsel Mark Paul Carey, Carey & Associates, Southport, CT, for Plaintiff. Joel B. Casey, McCarter & English, Kevin D. O'Leary, Cummings & Lockwood, Hartford, CT, Richard Michael Solazzo, Cummings & Lockwood, Stamford, CT, for Defendant. Squatrito. Dominic J., United States District Judge RULING AND ORDER *1 Currently pending in this action is a discovery dispute regarding the costs of retrieving certain electronic information in the possession of a third party. The plaintiff has filed repeated motions to compel production of this information, and the defendant has objected each time on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant and that the requests are overly burdensome. The argument between the parties relates to the costs associated with retrieving the information. The two sides have offered the court conflicting estimates of said costs, with each side providing affidavits and expert opinions in support of its respective position. The court has reviewed all of the memoranda and supporting affidavits and exhibits and has discussed the issue with the parties ad nauseam at numerous in camera conferences over the course of the past year. The court now issues the following order: The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the requested information, and each side shall pay half of all the charges actually billed to the defendant by the third-party storage facility in exchange for retrieving the information. The party that prevails on the plaintiff's FLSA claim either at summary judgment or at trial of this matter shall be entitled to recover from the losing party its share of the costs associated with the retrieval of this information. Further, the defendant shall file with the court proof of payment and an itemized bill describing the services rendered by the storage facility and the respective costs of said services. In light of the foregoing, the following motions are DENIED as moot: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Doc. # 129] and Plaintiff's Request for a Hearing [Doc. # 144]. So ordered.