Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02493/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02493-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

S.G.D. Engineering, Ltd., an Israeli 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Inc., a 

Maryland corporation,, 

Defendant.

No. CV-11-02493-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the Order dated February 28, 2013 (Doc. 60), the Special Master 

appointed in this case submitted his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on April 17, 

2013 (Doc. 84). Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 85) and Defendant filed a 

response (Doc 86). 

 The Special Master found that Defendant’s Fifth Privilege Log satisfied the 

requirements of Rule 26(b)(5). Doc. 84 at 19. Plaintiff objects to that finding, arguing 

that the log contains “and/or” descriptions and entries for documents about which no 

privilege is claimed. Doc. 85 at 3-4. In its response, Defendant has agreed to revise the 

log to satisfy these concerns. Doc. 86 at 2. With those modifications, the Court finds 

that the log satisfies Rule 26(b)(5). 

 The Special Master further recommends additional in camera review. Doc. 84 at 

19. The parties agree that additional in camera review is not necessary. Doc. 85 at 5; 

Doc. 86 at 3. Accordingly, the Court will not order additional in camera review. 

Case 2:11-cv-02493-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/24/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Finally, the Court agrees with the Special Master’s finding that each side shall pay 

one-half of the Special Master’s fee. Doc. 84 at 20; Doc. 60 at 2. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The R&R (Doc. 84) is adopted in part as set out above. 

 2. The parties shall each pay 50% of the Special Master’s fee. 

 3. The Court appreciates the Special Master’s assistance in this matter. 

Dated this 24th day of May, 2013. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-02493-DGC Document 93 Filed 05/24/13 Page 2 of 2