*1 The Court appointed Mr. Eric Scheible as a Mediator and Special Master to resolve several discovery disputes and guide the parties toward a resolution. ECF 13; 17. The Special Master issued an extensive Report and Recommendation (Report). ECF 27. In addition to an effort at resolving the competing motions to compel discovery that the parties filed, the Special Master lodged recommended resolutions to other discovery disputes that arose during the first attempted mediation. Id. at 342. The parties did not object to the Report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). The Report 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 Mr. Scheible's recommendations and will therefore adopt the reasoning and recommended discovery orders laid out in the Report.

Although Plaintiff did not object to the Report, Plaintiff moved for a protective order several days after the Report was filed. ECF 28. The Report recommended that the parties stipulate to a protective order “that is standard in cases such as this such that this document, and perhaps others that are the subject of this report and recommendation, may be designated as ‘confidential.’ ” ECF 27, PgID 346. Alternatively, the Report advised the Court to order the documents that Plaintiff must produce be subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(D) and (G) and “be used only for the purposes of prosecuting and defending the claims in this case and for no other purpose.” Id.

Despite the Special Master's recommendation that the parties stipulate to a protective order, Plaintiff moved for a protective order to “prohibit[ ] Defendant from publishing or disclosing any of Plaintiff's personal information ... to any third party; to identify any and all persons or ‘blacklists’ which Defendant has shared any of such information with; and, requiring Defendant to redact such personal information on any and all filings” by Defendant. ECF 28, PgID 543–44. Defendants responded that they “do not oppose the majority of Plaintiff's Motion” but request that the protective order not include “Plaintiff's numerous publicly available telephone numbers.” ECF 29, PgID 549. Defendants then argued that Plaintiff's motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to seek concurrence in good faith under Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).

The Court may issue a protective order upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). As an initial matter, the Court advises the parties to cooperate to reach an efficient resolution of this $16,000 case. Premature motions, spurious allegations, and disingenuous arguments are not well-received. And the parties should work to communicate through every step of the case. The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion insofar as Defendants agreed to a protective order. But the Court will not order the protection of publicly-available information.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [27] is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery [15] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

*2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a protective order [28] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must PRODUCE the actual phone bill(s)/invoices issued by the telephone service provider for the phone number ending in 2951 for the month of August 2023, only, without redaction. The production must CLEARLY IDENTIFY the name of the carrier, the name of the account holder(s), and whether the phone number ending in 2951 is a personal or commercial account/phone number. The production must be DESIGNATED “CONFIDENTIAL.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must PRODUCE records of all outbound calls made to the phone number ending in 2951 on August 10, 2023 by any of the Defendants and/or Defendants' agents, employees, or representatives.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must PRODUCE documents maintained by Defendants pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(7)(iii) only for calls made to the phone number ending in 2951 on August 10, 2023 or NOTIFY Plaintiff that such documents do not exist.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must PRODUCE documents evidencing calls made only to the phone number ending in 2951 on August 10, 2023 or NOTIFY Plaintiff that such documents do not exist.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must SUPPLEMENT their responses to discovery requests as set forth in the Report.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all depositions must be CONCLUDED no later than July 24, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery produced must be used only for the purposes of prosecuting and defending the claims in this case and for no other purpose.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that personal information which is not publicly available, including full telephone numbers, birthdates, and social security numbers, must be REDACTED and not made publicly available.

SO ORDERED.