KOZEL v. KOZEL et al

Filing 332

CONSENT ORDER re 331 Status Report filed by DAVID F. KOZEL. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 11/13/2018. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
DAVID KOZEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEBORAH L. KOZEL, MICHAEL E.
SPEARS, ESQ., DALLAS C. KOZEL
and INDIA L. KOZEL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 7:16-cv-01672-DCC

CONSENT ORDER
On this 13th day of November, 2018, with respect to subpoenas issued in this matter for
telephone records, and upon consent of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

For all subpoenaed cell phone and other telephone records, the records will be

produced directly to counsel who subpoenaed the records.
2.

The subpoenaing party agrees not to contact any phone numbers identified in the

records obtained, until first conferring with counsel of the account holder, as set forth below.
3.

The subpoenaing party may then identify the telephone numbers, if any, of which

it wishes to learn more information and shall provide a list of those telephone numbers to counsel
for the account holder.
4.

Counsel for the Account Holder will have three (3) business days to provide any

additional identifying information for the requested cell phone numbers, e.g. identity of individual
or business associated with each number. In the event the Account Holder for a phone number is
a corporation or other entity, the identifying information to be provided is the name of the
individual who regularly receives calls/voicemails at that number under the corporate account or

plan.

Likewise, if an employee has family members covered under a corporate plan, the

appropriate identifying information would be the name of the employee’s family member, not the
employee.
5.

Should the Account Holder desire to protect/withhold the identity of the Account

Holder for a particular telephone number, within the above three-day period, counsel for the
Account Holder shall notify the Court of said dispute unless the Court appoints a Discovery
Master. If a Discovery Master is appointed, all such disputes shall be submitted to the Discovery
Master for resolution.
6.

All phone records disclosed in this litigation will be labeled “Confidential,” making

such records subject to all terms of the Consent Confidentiality Order.
7.

All phone records disclosed in this litigation will be for attorneys’ eyes only and

will not be shared with the parties, except that each party may review his or her own telephone
records. The attorneys’ eyes only designation encompasses only attorneys, paralegals, and
administrative support. It does not include investigators, or any individual providing similar
services, whether an employee of counsels’ firm or a third party contractor retained by counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
______________________________
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE 

November 13, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina

2