Wellin v. Wellin et al

Filing 392

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 382 Report and Recommendation.; granting in part and denying in part 234 Motion to Compel (rweh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
WENDY WELLIN, as the 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, et. al.,
Defendants.
LARRY S. McDEVITT, as Trustee of the
Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
PETER J. WELLIN, et. al.,
Defendants.
PETER J. WELLIN, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WENDY WELLIN, individually and as Trustee
of the Keith S. Wellin Florida Revocable Living
Trust u/a/d December 11, 2011,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:13-cv-1831-DCN

No. 2:13-cv-3595-DCN

No. 2:14-cv-4067-DCN

ORDER

These matters are before the court on the recommendations contained in:
Special Master William L. Howard’s report and recommendation re: plaintiff
Schwartz/McDevitt’s motion to compel and plaintiff Wendy Wellin’s motion to
1

compel, ECF No. 382,1 dated December 4, 2015 (the “R&R”). Pursuant to the R&R,
the Special Master recommended that:
1. The court find that the email listed on defendant Wellin children’s
(“defendants”) privilege log as CP_Priv_000064 is not protected from
disclosure, with the exception of the reference to statements made by
Robert Brunson of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, which are
protected by the attorney-client privilege and are subject to redaction;
2. The court find that the document listed on defendants’ privilege
log as PW_Priv_00009-11 is protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege; and
3. The court find that the documents listed on defendants’ privilege
log as PW_Priv_000078-79 and PW_Prive_000113-14 are not protect
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.
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). The Order
Appointing Special Master further specifies that:
Any party objecting to a recommendation or order by the special
master must notify the special master, the court, and all other
interested parties of its intention to raise an objection (by facsimile or
electronic mail) within five business days after receiving the special
master’s written recommendation. Thereafter, the said objection must
be raised with the court within twenty days of the receipt (by facsimile
or electronic mail) of the special master’s written recommendation or
order. If no party submits an intention to challenge the special
master’s written recommendation or order within five business days,
the court may adopt the recommended ruling as its order on the
disputed issue.
ECF No. 270 at 5–6.
No party submitted notice of its intention to file an objection to the
Special Master’s R&R within the required time period and no such objection
has been filed. Accordingly, the Special Master’s R&R is ADOPTED, and
1

All ECF No.’s refer to civil action number 2:13-cv-1831-DCN, unless otherwise specified.

2

plaintiffs’ motions to compel are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in
accordance with the Special Master’s recommendations.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 15, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

3