Wellin v. Wellin et al
Filing
390
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for (149 in 2:14-cv-04067-DCN, 376 in 2:13-cv-01831-DCN, 400 in 2:13-cv-03595-DCN) Report and Recommendation - Special Master. The Special Master's November 24, 2015 R&R is ADOP TED, and the service of the Subpoena and its response shall be governed by the method laid out in the R&R. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 1/11/2016. Associated Cases: 2:13-cv-01831-DCN, 2:13-cv-03595-DCN, 2:14-cv-04067-DCN(jbry, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Wendy C. H. Wellin, as Special Administrator of
the Estate of Keith S. Wellin and as Trustee of
the Keith S. Wellin Florida Revocable Living
Trust u/a/d December 11, 2001,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Peter J. Wellin, Cynthia W. Plum and Marjorie
W. King, individually, and as co-Trustees and
beneficiaries of the Wellin Family 2009
Irrevocable Trust u/a/d November 2, 2009, and
Friendship Management, LLC,
Defendants.
Larry S. McDevitt, as Trust Protector
of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust,
Plaintiff
vs.
Peter J. Wellin, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Peter J. Wellin, Cynthia W. Plum and Marjorie
W. King, as Co-Trustees of the Wellin Family
2009 Revocable Trust,
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
vs.
Lester S. Schwartz, as Trust Protector
of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust u/a/d
November 2, 2009, et al.,
Counterclaim Defendants.
Peter J. Wellin, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Wendy Wellin, Individually and as Trustee of the
1
Keith S. Wellin Florida Revocable Living Trust
u/a/d December 11, 2001, and Hamilton College,
Defendants.
) C/A No. 2:13-cv-01831-DCN
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER ADOPTING CONSENT
)
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
) C/A No. 2:13-cv-03595-DCN
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) C/A No. 2:14-cv-04067-DCN
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
This matter is before the court on the recommendation contained in Special Master
William L. Howard’s Consent Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 376)1, dated
November 24, 2015, as to Wendy C.H. Wellin’s (“Wendy”) Motion to Quash [Service] or in the
Alternative for a Protective Order (ECF No. 348).
Pursuant to the R& R, the parties agreed and the Special Master recommended that:
A. The subpoena duces tecum at issue (ECF No. 348-1), which is directed to
Joseph H. Amberson III, be served upon him and be limited to the following
documents only as they relate to the relationship between Keith and Wendy
Wellin:
1.
Any and all deposition transcripts of any party or
witness taken in the divorce action between Nancy
Negley and Keith S. Wellin (the “divorce action”);
2.
Any and all videotaped statements of any witness or
party taken in connection with the divorce action;
and
3.
Any and all pleadings, affidavits, or statements
relating to the divorce action;
B. The documents be produced to counsel for Wendy Wellin, individually, so
that they may be marked “confidential”, if necessary; and
C. Wendy Wellin may challenge the production of documents by Amberson that
appear to fall outside of the Subpoena’s requests by moving for a protective
order with regard to those particular documents.
As stated in the court’s February 17, 2015 Order Appointing Special Master (ECF No.
270), the court may “adopt or affirm, modify, wholly or partly reject or reverse or resubmit” the
Special Master’s order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1).
Since the parties have consented to this R&R, no party has submitted notice of its
intention to file an objection, as provided in ECF No. 270 at 5–6, to the Special Master’s R&R.
1
Though Case Nos. 2:13-cv-1831, 2:13-cv-3595, and 2:14-cv-4067 have been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes, all references to electronic filing numbers in this order will be directed to
2
Accordingly, the Special Master’s November 24, 2015 R&R is ADOPTED, and the service of
the Subpoena and its response shall be governed by the method laid out in the R&R.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 11, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina
filings in Case No. 2:13-cv-1831.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?