STAR LODGE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Case No. 2:19-cv-10905 United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division Signed December 22, 2020 Counsel Rabih Hamawi, Law Office of Rabih Hamawi, P.C., Southfield, MI, for Plaintiff. Brian E. Devilling, Matthew S. Ponzi, Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff PC, Terry L. Welch, Nielsen, Zehe and Antas, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant. Murphy III, Stephen J., United States District Judge ORDER ADOPTING DISCOVERY MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [32] AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OR FOR AN IN-CAMERA REVIEW [24] *1 After Plaintiff moved to compel discovery, ECF 24, the Court referred the matter to a discovery master, ECF 28. The discovery master issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) that recommended the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion to compel and deny Plaintiff's motion for an in-camera review. ECF 32, PgID 582–83. Specifically, the Report recommended Defendant produce the following documents: END000344, END000358–422, END000819–820, END001433–1482, unredacted versions of END003792–3793, END003821, and END003835–3837. Id. at 582. The Report also recommended Defendants produce the following documents “with only the redactions of the loss reserves and personal financial information including social security numbers, dates of birth, and [taxpayer identification numbers]:” SIU000189–191, SIU000205–209, SIU000210–212, SIU000216–622, SIU000647–656, SIU000658–660, SIU000719–744, SIU000767–1168, and SIU001175–1576. The parties did not object to the Report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds that it is well reasoned and supported by the record and the applicable law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)–(4). The Court agrees with the discovery master's recommendations, and further adopts the reasoning laid out in the Report to support its rulings. WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the discovery master's report and recommendation [32] is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery or for an in-camera review [24] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must PRODUCE the documents listed above. SO ORDERED. I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 22, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. David P. Parker Case Manager