With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “has somehow defaulted in [his] obligation to search [his] records and produce the requested data” or that Harris’s production had been “inadequate and that a search of [his electronic storage devices] could recover deleted relevant materials.” See id. at 317. Nor did Arthur offer any evidence supporting her effort to obtain the hard drives or any evidence regarding which, if any, of Harris’s electronic storage devices could be expected to contain discoverable documents at the hearing on Harris’s motion to clarify the January 27 order. See id. Weekley Homes also held that direct access to a responding party’s electronic storage devices is more likely to be appropriate “when there is some direct relationship between the electronic storage device and the claim itself.” Id. at 317-19 (<HOLDING>). Arthur made no such showing either at the

A: recognizing that ordering examination of a partys electronic storage device is particularly intrusive and should be generally discouraged just as permitting open access to a partys file cabinets for general perusal would be and citing cases where employers sued former employees for misuse of company computers as instances where close relationship between claims and defendants computer equipment justified production of computers themselves
B: holding that a close temporal proximity between a public employees speech and a defendants actions suggested a causal relationship
C: holding that whether a person should be considered again for possible employment is an inherently subjective question for the employer as is the employers opinions of its employees
D: holding former employees claims for defamation abuse of process breach of employment contract and intentional interference with business relationship to be compulsory counterclaims to employers prior state court action for appropriating confidential consumer information
A.