SOUTHERN OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SANBORN BUILDERS, INC., et al., Defendants Case No. 3:18cv145-TKW-HTC United States District Court, N.D. Florida Filed September 04, 2020 Counsel Lowel Landis Sexton, Attorneys For Disabled Americans Group, Anna Zhuromskaya, The Ada Group LLC, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff. Wetherell II, T. Kent, United States District Judge ORDER *1 This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 71) to a portion of the magistrate judge's Order (Doc. 69) on Plaintiff's amended motion for protective order (Doc. 61). Upon due consideration of the magistrate judge's Order, Plaintiff's objection, Defendant Sanborn's response (Doc. 74), Plaintiff's reply (Doc. 75), and the case file, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objection is well taken. As an initial matter, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that she was not bound by the prior magistrate judge's discovery order or Judge Hinkle's decisions in Moore[1] and Dozier.[2] Additionally, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that it is not necessary for there to be a definitive finding that the policy is ambiguous before discovery of non-privileged information in the underwriting file is allowed so long as the party seeking the discovery makes a prima facie showing that applicable policy language is ambiguous or that the coverage it provides is potentially illusory. Here, although it is a close question in the Court's mind whether Sanborn made such a showing, the Court cannot say that the magistrate judge's determination on that issue was clearly erroneous. That, however, does not end the inquiry because discovery is limited to relevant matters and, here, it is not intuitively clear how the information requested in the challenged discovery requests (topics 7-10 and 13) is potentially relevant to the issues raised in Sanborn's affirmative defenses. Indeed, despite the Court's best effort to understand Sanborn's argument about the relevancy of the disputed topics, see Doc. 62, at 17-26, the Court simply fails to see how the information requested in disputed topics would tend to clarify any ambiguity in the policy or show that the PCOH coverage is illusory under Plaintiff's interpretation of the policy. Thus, it was clear error for the magistrate judge to deny Plaintiff's amended motion for protective order with respect to topics 7-10 and 13. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge's disposition of Plaintiff's amended motion for protective order is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order, except with respect to topics 7-10 and 13. 2. Plaintiff's amended motion for protective order (Doc. 61) is GRANTED as to topics 7-10 and 13. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of September, 2020. Footnotes [1] Auto-Owners Inc. v. Moore, N.D. Fla. Case No. 5:15cv225 (Doc. 39) (Mar. 22, 2017). [2] Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. The Dozier Corp., N.D. Fla. Case No. 5:17cv227 (Doc. 39) (June 21, 2018).