On March 4, 2020, the Court held an informal telephonic conference with the parties on items of disputed discovery. After consultation with the parties,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by close of business on March 11, 2020 the Plaintiff will have provided the applicable cell phones of: (1) Plaintiff, (2) Elle Foster, (3) Chelsea Meyers, and (4) Shea Watson to an agreed upon third party forensic search specialist (“Specialist”). The parties will also at the same time provide the Specialist agreed upon search terms with which the databases derived from the above cell phones shall be searched. The Specialist will then search the cell phone databases and provide a list of all responsive documents from each cell phone to both parties. The actual documents will be provided to Mr. Nathanson who may then conduct an expeditious review of the documents for privilege and relevancy. Mr. Nathanson shall then promptly produce all responsive documents and provide a detailed privilege log for every document that he then withholds on the basis of privilege or relevance. As the Court has indicated the search terms and the responsive documents would be those that relate to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. The documents provided by Mr. Nathanson, as well as the privilege log of any documents withheld by him, shall be cross-referenced in an easily discernible fashion to the list provided to all parties by the Specialist of all the documents that are identified by the mutually agreed upon search terms.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before March 18, 2020 the parties shall file a joint notice with the Court indicating when the review process shall be completed, and the documents provided to Plaintiff.

Defendants shall pay the initial cost for the Specialist, but should additional documents be located in this search that are discoverable, Plaintiff shall promptly reimburse the entire cost of the Specialist to the Defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 306) is stricken and Defendant’s Motion to File a Response (Doc. 307) is therefore denied as moot. Plaintiff may well be correct that on January 10, 2020 the Court authorized Plaintiff to file a motion for sanctions if it wished to do so in advance of the Court setting extensive hearings to review the parties’ discovery disputes. Thereafter, as Plaintiff is well aware the Court spent hours with the parties in hearings listening to and resolving their disputes. After having resolved all of those disputes, and read the motions filed by both parties in support of that resolution, the Court will not now revisit those disputes when the Plaintiff files a Motion for Sanctions virtually two months after the fact. The Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 306) therefore is stricken, and Defendants Motion to File a Response to it (Doc. 307) is moot.