*1 This case is assigned to the Honorable Michael J. Truncale, United States District Judge. Judge Truncale has referred Plaintiff Isaiah Johnson's Motion to Strike Objections and Compel Discovery and for Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion to Compel”) (Doc. No. 33) to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for consideration and disposition. Doc. No. 35. This action arises from Defendant United of Omaha Life Insurance's (“United”) denial of a life insurance policy allegedly owed to its sole beneficiary, Isaiah Johnson, son of Tina M. Johnson. Doc. Nos. 1, 33.

At issue before the court are Plaintiff's written discovery requests propounded upon United. On March 18, 2022, United served its written discovery responses to Johnson's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission. Ex. 1, Doc. No. 33-1. Unsatisfied with United's responses, on October 7, 2022, counsel for Johnson sent a letter to counsel for United, requesting that they cure “certain deficiencies” with their written discovery responses. Doc. No. 33 at 2; Ex. 2, Doc. No. 33-2. Counsel for both parties communicated throughout October and early November 2022, but were unable to resolve these discovery issues.

On November 4, 2022, Johnson filed the pending Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 33. On November 18, 2022, United filed its Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 34. On December 8, 2022, Judge Truncale referred the instant motion to the undersigned (Doc. No. 35), and on December 20, 2022, the undersigned set a hearing for the pending motion. Doc. Nos. 36, 39.

On January 10, 2023, the undersigned held an in-person hearing on Johnson's motion, with counsel for both parties present. During this hearing, the undersigned ruled on all discovery-related matters at issue, and proposed to rule on an allegedly privileged matter after an in camera review of the documents. Specifically at issue in the present discovery dispute are: (1) whether the Attorney-Client Communications Privilege applies to Plaintiff's Request for Production Numbers 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 17, and/or 19; (2) United's objection to responding to Plaintiff's Interrogatory Number Four; (3) United's objection to responding to Plaintiff's Request for Production Numbers 4, 7, and 21; (4) outstanding disagreements regarding topics for the deposition of United's corporate representative; and (5) Plaintiff's Request for Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to Rule 37. See Doc. No. 33 at 5–15. The undersigned will address each in turn.

I. Request for Production Nos. 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 17, and/or 19

In United's responses to Johnson's written discovery requests, it provided a privilege log indicating that it redacted certain information from the claim file based on the Attorney-Client Communications Privilege. Exs. 4, 8, Doc. Nos. 33-4, 33-8. The items are “Bates Numbered” as “UNITED-000038”; “UNITED-000040-41”; and “UNITED-000367-8.” Id. At the hearing before the undersigned on January 10, 2023, both parties agreed to an in camera review of these documents for the court to determine whether the Attorney-Client Communications Privilege applies to these documents.

*2 The court has reviewed the documents at issue in camera and is satisfied at this time that it constitutes information protected by the Attorney-Client Communications Privilege. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Isaiah Johnson's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED as it pertains to these documents.[1]

II. Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4

Plaintiff's Interrogatory Number 4 asks: “On what date did you anticipate litigation in this matter? Answer this interrogatory in the form of a calendar date.” Ex. 1, Doc. No. 33-1 at 5. After reviewing the parties’ briefings and oral arguments, for the reasons stated at the hearing, the undersigned is of the belief that Johnson's Motion to Compel should be denied for this discovery request.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Isaiah Johnson's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED as it relates to Interrogatory Number Four.

III. Requests for Production Nos. 4, 7, and 21

Next, in its written discovery responses, United objected to Plaintiff's Requests for Production Numbers 4, 7, and 21. Ex. 1, Doc. No. 33-1 at 6–7. The parties disputed all three requests in their briefing on this matter as well. See Doc. No. 33 at 11–13; Doc. No. 34 at 10–15. During the January 10, 2023 hearing, however, Plaintiff's counsel represented that it withdraws its motion with regards to Requests for Production Numbers 7 and 21.

Moreover, Request for Production Number 4 originally propounded the following: “Please produce all claims-handling guidelines, related to the product line at issue, that were in effect at the time of Tina M. Johnson's life-insurance claim.” Ex. 1, Doc. No. 33-1 at 6. At the hearing, however, the parties agreed to modify this request to the following: “Please produce all claims-handling guidelines, related to the handling of life-insurance claims, that were in effect between when the claim was submitted and when the claim was denied.”

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Isaiah Johnson's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED AS MOOT as it relates to Requests for Production Numbers 7 and 21. Additionally, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Isaiah Johnson's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED as it relates to Request for Production Number 4.

IV. Corporate Representative Topics

Next, the parties dispute which topics may be asked of United's corporate representative. At issue are the following six topics that Johnson proposes:

As a threshold matter, the parties agreed that Topic Number 2 had been resolved prior to the January 10, 2023 hearing. After reviewing the parties’ briefings and oral arguments, for the reasons stated at the hearing, the court grants Plaintiff's motion as it relates to Topic Numbers 1, 3, and 8, and that Topic Number 9 is denied. Lastly, the undersigned proposed, and the parties agreed, to modifying Topic Number 13 to the following: “The existence of documents related to the life-insurance claim that have not been produced to Plaintiff.” Thus, Topic Number 13 is granted as modified.

*3 Accordingly, in accordance with the aforementioned rulings and modifications, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Isaiah Johnson's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART AND AS MODIFIED, and DENIED IN PART AND AS MOOT with respect to these six (6) topics proposed to United's corporate representative.

V. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Lastly, Johnson's counsel represented at the parties’ hearing that it withdraws its pending Request for Attorneys’ Fees Under Rule 37. Doc. No. 33 at 14. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Isaiah Johnson's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED AS MOOT with regards to his pending request for attorneys’ fees.

VI. Order

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Isaiah Johnson's Motion to Strike Objections and Compel Discovery and for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in accordance with this Order.