*1 This discovery dispute was opened by correspondence to the Special Master, dated October 18, 2019, on behalf of all Plaintiffs. That correspondence identified three (3) categories of documents sought by Plaintiffs as to which Plaintiffs claimed an impasse existed as to their production by Defendant Lincoln.

By correspondence to the Special Master dated October 21, 2019, counsel for Defendant Lincoln asserted that in fact the impasse on the production of documents extended beyond just those documents identified in Plaintiffs’ correspondence of October 18, 2019 and actually included certain additional documents that had been earlier identified in a June 25, 2019 email from Plaintiffs’ counsel to counsel for Defendant Lincoln. More specifically, Defendant Lincoln asserted that the impasse regarding that category of documents identified in Plaintiffs’ October 18, 2019 correspondence as

should actually be expanded to what Defendant Lincoln contended was a broader category of documents which had been identified in Plaintiffs’ June 25, 2019 email as

By its correspondence dated October 21, 2019, counsel for Defendant Lincoln further took the position that, accordingly, Plaintiffs should be required to expand the category of requested documents in dispute or be “precluded from seeking relief [as to those documents within that expanded category of documents] at a later date.”

By correspondence to the Special Master dated October 22, 2019, Plaintiffs asserted that there was no need for any briefing on the production of documents which were not in fact being presently sought by Plaintiffs and that, accordingly, any claimed “failure” on Plaintiffs’ part to include additional documents in any present motion to compelshould not preclude the possibility of Plaintiffs making some or all of such additional documents, as required, the subject of a later motion to compel.

By correspondence to the Special Master dated October 23, 2019, counsel for Defendant Lincoln requested a conference call with counsel and the Special Master. That conference call was conducted on October 28, 2019.

The position of Defendant Lincoln is that given the interests of efficiency and stream-lining discovery any dispute now raised by Plaintiffs regarding documents sought by Plaintiffs should include that broader category of documents identified in Plaintiffs’ June 25, 2019 email as opposed to what appears to be a more narrow category of documents as set forth at Item “A” in Plaintiffs’ correspondence of October 18, 2019.

*2 The position of Plaintiffs is that the documents they are presently seeking have in fact been narrowed by way of the meet-and-confer process but that even should they not presently pursue the broader production of documents urged by Defendant Lincoln, Plaintiffs should not be precluded from possibly seeking in good faith additional documents at some later point in time.

While Defendant Lincoln makes an inarguable point that the discoveryprocess, including the litigation of discovery disputes, should be as efficient and stream-lined as possible, it is entirely another matter to argue from there that Plaintiffs, based on that which they would now choose to make - or rather to not make - the subject of their intended motion to compel the production of documents, would on that basis alone be precluded from seeking, as required, yet additional so-called “Life Settlement” documents, including by way of a later motion to compel. In effect, to prejudge such a future result, which is essentially the result that Defendant Lincoln argues for, would be unwarranted, and likely impractical.

That said, and without of course prejudging at this time any potential future discovery dispute, it is yet fair to observe that in respect of any such future motion practice related to any additional “Life Settlement” documents (as that term was used in the parties’ correspondence), Plaintiffs should expect to have to carry a heavy burden of persuasion and, as discussed in the October 28, 2019 conference, Plaintiffs would need to establish a substantial justification for same in very clear and compelling terms. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves acknowledged in the October 28, 2019 conference that in regard to such potential future facts and circumstances Plaintiffs were “willing to live with that.”*

Accordingly, in view of all the foregoing, Plaintiffs should now present their motion to compel covering such documents as they see fit to include or exclude, with the following schedule to be followed:

John J. Soroko, Esq. Special Master

See Reed v. Citigroup, Inc., 2014 WL 1958387 at *3 (D.N.J. May 15, 2014)(further “bites at the apple” not permitted where party was deemed to have had “ample opportunities... to request such documentation.”); see also generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c) providing that discovery “shall be limited by the court if it determines that...(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought.”