The question has come up several times recently whether it is necessary to file for a protective order when objecting to the discovery of not inaccessible data.  When I looked at the MCLE presentation that we do from Eclaris, I saw that our presentation on this point is ambiguous. To make clear, the current rule does not require a protective order in order to preserve an objection:

 "2031.210(d) If a party objects to the discovery of electronically stored information on the grounds that it is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense and that the responding party will not search the source in the absence of an agreement with the demanding party or court order, the responding party shall identify in its response the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. By objecting and identifying information of a type or category of source or sources that are not reasonably accessible, the responding party preserves any objections it may have relating to that electronically stored information."

The current confusion in California seems to arise because an earlier version of the edisovery law, which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, would have required a protective order (it was vetoed for unrelated reason when the Governor was vetoing everything due to a budget dispute).  In her blog at FIOS (http://www.discoveryresources.org/library/case-law-and-rules/ca-new-rules-inaccessible-protective-order-gone/), Mary Mack has clarified this point.  The confusion created by the earlier version and subsequent change, seems to be fairly widespread.

 Fortunately, reason (and someone's experience) prevailed in the final bill.  It is now clear that in objecting what is needed is to identify the type or category of source or sources that are asserted to be not reasonably accessible.  This should suffice to preserve the objection.