From: Zagnoli, Charles <Charles.Zagnoli@ropesgray.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 11:36 PM

To: Proposed_Order_Finnegan <Proposed_Order_Finnegan@ilnd.uscourts.gov>

Cc: KHibbert@crowell.com; Mpine@crowell.com; JKingsolver@crowell.com; bgilbertson_forsgrenfisher.com

<bgilbertson@forsgrenfisher.com>; vmccalmont@forsgrenfisher.com; Bushofsky, Jeffrey J.

<Jeffrey.Bushofsky@ropesgray.com>; Farrell, Timothy <Timothy.Farrell@ropesgray.com>

Subject: BCBSM v. Walgreen Co., No. 1:20-cv-1853 - Proposed Order re Special Master Appointment

CAUTION - EXTERNAL: 

Hon. Judge Finnegan & Staff,

Pursuant to the Court’s instructions, see Dkt. 437, I’ve attached the parties’ proposed orders appointing a

Special Master in the above-captioned case. The Plaintiffs’ proposed order indicates the differences between

the parties’ drafts in tracked changes. The parties have been unable to resolve these differences through

negotiation.

Walgreens’ Position

Defendants submit the following explanation of their position on the open provisions:

In Paragraph 2, Plaintiffs wish to preserve the option of submitting documents in camera to the Special

Master for the Special Master to rely on in issuing reports, orders, or recommendations. Defendants have

serious concerns that the Initial Plaintiffs intend to submit such information without allowing Defendants any

opportunity to review or respond to the information. Such a process would violate Defendants’ due process

and other rights if the information became a basis for the Special Master’s reports, orders, or

recommendations on the Motion’s merits.

Defendants were willing to accept the Initial Plaintiffs’ proposed language in Paragraph 2, if the Initial

Plaintiffs would agree to add “privilege” before “disputes.” Defendants proposed that qualifier because they

believe the Special Master should have authority to resolve, or recommend a resolution of, any privilege

disputes related to Defendants’ Motion to Compel. During meet-and-confers predating the Motion, the Initial

Plaintiffs refused to provide certain TAR metrics specifically requested by Defendants on privilege grounds. 

Defendants have sought the same metrics in their Motion, and Defendants disagree that the metrics are in

fact privileged. Defendants understood the Court to refer the entire Motion to the Special Master, and

Defendants thus believe the Special Master should have authority to recommend resolutions of privilege

disputes related to the Motion. Defendants would agree to allow the Special Master to review documents in

camera for that limited purpose.

Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not believe the Special Master should resolve privilege disputes, and

Plaintiffs have refused to limit the in camera review authority to the context of resolving privilege disputes,

as Defendants requested. The resulting language suggests that a party may submit any information to the

Special Master to resolve any dispute, including the merits of the Motion itself. If the parties are not going

to be submitting potentially privileged documents to the Special Master to resolve privilege disputes,

according to the Initial Plaintiffs’ position, then the parties would have no valid reason for submitting, for in

camera inspection, documents on which the Special Master would then rely to issue her decisions.

With respect to the language in Paragraph 9, Defendants wish to be clear that the Special Master has the

authority to recommend the award or reallocation of attorneys’ fees and costs related to the Motion. Again,

Defendants’ Motion specifically requested that relief, and we understood the Court to intend that the Special

Master would recommend a complete resolution of the Motion. Paragraph 7 permits the Special Master to

recommend sanctions, but Defendants wish to avoid any ambiguity as to whether a cost-shifting award

qualifies as a discovery sanction.

Initial Plaintiffs’ Position

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:9487
The Initial Plaintiffs’ counsel drafted the following explanation of their position and asked that we include the

explanation in the email to the Court:

“The Initial Plaintiffs submit the attached Proposed Order Appointing Maura Grossman as Special Master. 

The Parties disagree as to the language included in two of the provisions in the attached Proposed Order. 

First, with regard to paragraph 2, the Initial Plaintiffs believe the Special Master should have the ability to

review privileged or protected documents in camera and to rely on those documents in making her

recommendations to the Court. This is standard practice, and there is no reasonable basis for forcing the

Initial Plaintiffs to waive their privilege or work product claims, as envisioned by Defendants, in the event the

Special Master relies on her in camera review to make certain determinations.

“Second, the Parties disagree with the language proposed by Defendants in paragraph 9 pertaining to the

shifting of costs associated with Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 374). Any such cost-shifting would

necessarily be considered a sanction under Rule 37, and the Special Master’s authority with regard to

recommending sanctions is already set forth in the Proposed Order at paragraph 7. Thus, inclusion of the

cost-shifting provision at paragraph 9 is, at best, redundant, and at worst, confusing as to the Special

Master’s authority with regard to recommending sanctions.”

Sincerely,

Charles D. Zagnoli

Attorney for Defendants Walgreen Co. and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. 

Charles D. Zagnoli

ROPES & GRAY LLP

T +1 312 845 1374 | M +1 484 437 6374

191 North Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Charles.Zagnoli@ropesgray.com

www.ropesgray.com

This message (including attachments) is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,

please delete it without further distribution and reply to the sender that you have received the message in

error.

CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening

attachments or clicking on links. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:9488
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

BCBSM, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WALGREEN CO. and WALGREENS BOOTS 

ALLIANCE, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-01853

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall 

Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan 

Consolidated with: 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04738 

Case No. 1:20-cv-03332 

Case No. 1:20-cv-01929 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04940 

Case No. 1:22-cv-01362

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER 

I HEREBY APPOINT, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C), Maura 

R. Grossman to serve as Special Master in Case No. 1:20-cv-01853 until further order of this Court. 

The Court has received an affidavit from Dr. Grossman disclosing whether there are any grounds 

for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(2), (b)(3)(A). Consistent with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(1), all parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the 

appointment of Dr. Grossman. The Court has also considered the fairness of imposing the likely 

expenses on the parties and has taken steps to protect against unreasonable expense or delay, as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(3). Finding that no grounds for disqualification 

of Dr. Grossman exist, for the reasons explained in open court, see Dkt. 434, 436, 437, and finding 

that these matters require specialized technical expertise and cannot be effectively and timely 

addressed by a district or magistrate judge in this district, the Court hereby appoints Dr. Grossman 

to serve as Special Master.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:9489
DEFENDANTS’ DRAFT 4.13.23

2

1. The Special Master is appointed to address and resolve all issues raised in 

Defendants’1 Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Document Discovery and Related Metrics [Dkt. 374], 

including asserted issues related to (A) the Initial Plaintiffs’2 use of technology assisted review 

(TAR) and (B) the Initial Plaintiffs’ collection and production of documents from additional 

custodians. The parties and the Special Master will meet and confer to formulate a process for the 

Special Master’s work. The Special Master is directed to proceed with all reasonable diligence in 

the performance of her duties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2).

2. The Special Master may communicate ex parte with the Court for any reason. The 

Special Master may not communicate ex parte with the parties except with respect to scheduling 

matters. A party may not submit materials to the Special Master ex parte without the other party’s 

written consent, or without (a) the disclosing party first submitting the materials to the Court in 

camera, (b) the parties having an opportunity to be heard by the Court as to the producing party’s 

objections to sharing the information with the other party, and (c) the Court entering an order 

1 “Defendants” refers to Walgreen Co. and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

2 “Initial Plaintiffs” refers to BCBSM, Inc. (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue shield of 

Minnesota); HMO Minnesota (d/b/a Blue Plus); Health Options, Inc. (d/b/a Florida Blue HMO); 

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina; Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota; Blue 

Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (d/b/a Florida Blue); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 

Alabama; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 

Massachusetts, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts HMO Blue, Inc.; Wellmark, 

Inc. (d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield and d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield 

of Iowa); Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc. (d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South 

Dakota); Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc.; Wellmark Synergy Health, Inc.; Wellmark Value 

Health Plan, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. (d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of 

Arizona and d/b/a AZBLUE); Asuris Northwest Health; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas 

City, Inc.; Cambia Health Solutions, Inc.; Regence BlueShield of Idaho, Inc.; Regence BlueCross 

BlueShield of Oregon; Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah; Regence BlueShield; HealthNow 

New York, Inc.; Highmark Western New York, Inc. (f/k/a Blue Cross of Western New York); 

Northeastern New York (f/k/a BlueShield of Northeastern New York); Horizon Healthcare 

Services, Inc. (d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey); and Horizon Healthcare of 

New Jersey, Inc. (d/b/a Horizon NJ Health).

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:9490
DEFENDANTS’ DRAFT 4.13.23

3

resolving the producing party’s objection to producing the materials to the other party. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 53(b)(2)(B).

3. The Special Master shall preserve, as a record of her activities, all written 

submissions received from the parties, all written submissions sent to the parties or the Court, any 

transcripts of hearings before the Special Master, and any evidence considered in making or 

recommending findings of fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2)(C). Upon request of the Court or of any

party, the Special Master shall file these records with the Clerk of the Court. The Special Master 

shall file any report, order, or recommendation to the Court and promptly serve a copy on each 

party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(d), (e). Docketing an order, report, or recommendation via the CM/ECF 

system shall constitute proper service of process on all parties.

4. The Initial Plaintiffs or Defendants may file an objection to—or a motion to adopt 

or modify—the Special Master’s order, report, or recommendations no later than twenty-one (21)

days after a copy of such order, report, or recommendations is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). The 

party filing an objection or motion must also file the relevant record if not filed by the Special 

Master with her order, report, or recommendations. Unless a different schedule is set by the Court, 

the responding party must file any written response within fourteen (14) days after the objection

or motion is filed.

5. Legal conclusions made by the Special Master will be reviewed by the Court de 

novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4). Findings of fact made by the Special Master will be reviewed by 

the Court de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3). Rulings on procedural matters made by the Special 

Master will be reviewed by the Court for abuse of discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(5). Any order, 

report, or recommendation of the Special Master, unless it involves a finding of fact or conclusion 

of law, will be deemed a ruling on a procedural matter.

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:9491
DEFENDANTS’ DRAFT 4.13.23

4

6. The Special Master shall be bound by the terms of the Amended Agreed 

Confidentiality Order [Dkt. 365]. In particular, and without limiting the foregoing, the Special 

Master must comply with the Amended Agreed Confidentiality Order with respect to the 

maintenance, transmission, service, and filing of Confidential or Highly Confidential Information 

(as defined by the Amended Agreed Confidentiality Order) received by the Special Master or 

reflected in any order, report, or recommendation of the Special Master.

7. The Special Master is granted the full rights, powers, and duties afforded by Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 53(c) and may adopt such procedures as are not inconsistent with that 

Rule, or with this Order or other Orders of the Court. The Special Master may recommend that the 

Court impose against a party any noncontempt sanction provided by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37 or 45, and may recommend a contempt sanction against a party and sanctions against 

a nonparty. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c)(2). The Court will decide de novo all objections to any such 

recommendations.

8. Disclosure of privileged or protected information connected with the litigation to 

the Special Master shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or immunity or of a right to seek 

protection in this case, and such disclosure also does not constitute a waiver in any other federal 

or state proceeding; accordingly, a claim of privilege or protection may not be raised as a basis to 

resist such a disclosure ordered by the Special Master.

9. The Special Master’s compensation, including reasonable costs or expenses 

incurred, shall be borne equally, with 50% paid by the Initial Plaintiffs and 50% paid by 

Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g). If the Special Master finds that she needs the assistance of a 

secretary, paralegal, or similar adjunct, the expense of such adjunct will be billed by the Special 

Master at cost. The Special Master shall submit a monthly invoice to both parties, with a copy to 

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:9492
DEFENDANTS’ DRAFT 4.13.23

5

the Court. Objections to the Special Master’s invoices must be raised promptly, first to the Special 

Master. If the parties and Special Master find they cannot resolve the objection, the Court will 

resolve the objection. If there are no objections, the parties shall pay the Special Master’s invoice 

within 60 days of receipt. The Special Master shall be compensated at a rate of $875.00 per hour.

For cause or when fairness dictates, the Special Master may recommend that the Court shift or 

reallocate between the parties the costs of and expenses related to (a) her services or 

(b) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Document Discovery and Related Metrics [Dkt. 

374]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g)(3).

10. This Order may be amended after notice to the parties and an opportunity to be 

heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________ _____________________________________

Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:9493
DCACTIVE-72132642.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

BCBSM, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WALGREEN CO. and WALGREENS BOOTS 

ALLIANCE, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-01853

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall 

Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan 

Consolidated with: 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04738 

Case No. 1:20-cv-03332 

Case No. 1:20-cv-01929 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04940 

Case No. 1:22-cv-01362

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER 

I HEREBY APPOINT, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C), Maura 

R. Grossman to serve as Special Master in Case No. 1:20-cv-01853 until further order of this Court. 

The Court has received an affidavit from Dr. Grossman disclosing whether there are any grounds 

for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(2), (b)(3)(A). Consistent with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(1), all parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the 

appointment of Dr. Grossman. The Court has also considered the fairness of imposing the likely 

expenses on the parties and has taken steps to protect against unreasonable expense or delay, as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(3). Finding that no grounds for disqualification 

of Dr. Grossman exist, for the reasons explained in open court, see Dkt. 434, 436, 437, and finding 

that these matters require specialized technical expertise and cannot be effectively and timely 

addressed by a district or magistrate judge in this district, the Court hereby appoints Dr. Grossman 

to serve as Special Master.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:9494
DCACTIVE-72132642.1

DEFENDANTS’ DRAFT 4.13.23

2

1. The Special Master is appointed to address and resolve all issues raised in 

Defendants’1 Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Document Discovery and Related Metrics [Dkt. 374], 

including asserted issues related to (A) the Initial Plaintiffs’2 use of technology assisted review 

(TAR) and (B) the Initial Plaintiffs’ collection and production of documents from additional 

custodians. The parties and the Special Master will meet and confer to formulate a process for the 

Special Master’s work. The Special Master is directed to proceed with all reasonable diligence in 

the performance of her duties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2).

2. The Special Master may communicate ex parte with the Court for any reason. The 

Special Master may not communicate ex parte with the parties except with respect to scheduling 

matters. The restriction on ex parte communications does not prohibit the submission of 

documents to the Special Master in camera for resolution of disputes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2)(B).

3. The Special Master shall preserve, as a record of her activities, all written 

submissions received from the parties, all written submissions sent to the parties or the Court, any 

1 “Defendants” refers to Walgreen Co. and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

2 “Initial Plaintiffs” refers to BCBSM, Inc. (d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue shield of 

Minnesota); HMO Minnesota (d/b/a Blue Plus); Health Options, Inc. (d/b/a Florida Blue HMO); 

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina; Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota; Blue 

Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (d/b/a Florida Blue); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 

Alabama; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 

Massachusetts, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts HMO Blue, Inc.; Wellmark, 

Inc. (d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield and d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield 

of Iowa); Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc. (d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South 

Dakota); Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc.; Wellmark Synergy Health, Inc.; Wellmark Value 

Health Plan, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. (d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of 

Arizona and d/b/a AZBLUE); Asuris Northwest Health; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas 

City, Inc.; Cambia Health Solutions, Inc.; Regence BlueShield of Idaho, Inc.; Regence BlueCross 

BlueShield of Oregon; Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah; Regence BlueShield; HealthNow 

New York, Inc.; Highmark Western New York, Inc. (f/k/a Blue Cross of Western New York); 

Northeastern New York (f/k/a BlueShield of Northeastern New York); Horizon Healthcare 

Services, Inc. (d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey); and Horizon Healthcare of 

New Jersey, Inc. (d/b/a Horizon NJ Health).

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9495
DCACTIVE-72132642.1

DEFENDANTS’ DRAFT 4.13.23

3

transcripts of hearings before the Special Master, and any evidence considered in making or 

recommending findings of fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2)(C). Upon request of the Court or of any

party, the Special Master shall file these records with the Clerk of the Court. The Special Master 

shall file any report, order, or recommendation to the Court and promptly serve a copy on each 

party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(d), (e). Docketing an order, report, or recommendation via the CM/ECF 

system shall constitute proper service of process on all parties.

4. The Initial Plaintiffs or Defendants may file an objection to—or a motion to adopt 

or modify—the Special Master’s order, report, or recommendations no later than twenty-one (21)

days after a copy of such order, report, or recommendations is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). The 

party filing an objection or motion must also file the relevant record if not filed by the Special 

Master with her order, report, or recommendations. Unless a different schedule is set by the Court, 

the responding party must file any written response within fourteen (14) days after the objection

or motion is filed.

5. Legal conclusions made by the Special Master will be reviewed by the Court de 

novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4). Findings of fact made by the Special Master will be reviewed by 

the Court de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)(A). Rulings on procedural matters made by the Special 

Master will be reviewed by the Court for abuse of discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(5). Any order, 

report, or recommendation of the Special Master, unless it involves a finding of fact or conclusion 

of law, will be deemed a ruling on a procedural matter.

6. The Special Master shall be bound by the terms of the Amended Agreed 

Confidentiality Order [Dkt. 365]. In particular, and without limiting the foregoing, the Special 

Master must comply with the Amended Agreed Confidentiality Order with respect to the 

maintenance, transmission, service, and filing of Confidential or Highly Confidential Information 

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:9496
DCACTIVE-72132642.1

DEFENDANTS’ DRAFT 4.13.23

4

(as defined by the Amended Agreed Confidentiality Order) received by the Special Master or 

reflected in any order, report, or recommendation of the Special Master.

7. The Special Master is granted the full rights, powers, and duties afforded by Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 53(c) and may adopt such procedures as are not inconsistent with that 

Rule, or with this Order or other Orders of the Court. The Special Master may recommend that the 

Court impose against a party any noncontempt sanction provided by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37 or 45, and may recommend a contempt sanction against a party and sanctions against 

a nonparty. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c)(2). The Court will decide de novo all objections to any such 

recommendations.

8. Disclosure of privileged or protected information connected with the litigation to 

the Special Master shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or immunity or of a right to seek 

protection in this case, and such disclosure also does not constitute a waiver in any other federal 

or state proceeding; accordingly, a claim of privilege or protection may not be raised as a basis to 

resist such a disclosure ordered by the Special Master.

9. The Special Master’s compensation, including reasonable costs or expenses 

incurred, shall be borne equally, with 50% paid by the Initial Plaintiffs and 50% paid by 

Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g). If the Special Master finds that she needs the assistance of a 

secretary, paralegal, or similar adjunct, the expense of such adjunct will be billed by the Special 

Master at cost. The Special Master shall submit a monthly invoice to both parties, with a copy to 

the Court. Objections to the Special Master’s invoices must be raised promptly, first to the Special 

Master. If the parties and Special Master find they cannot resolve the objection, the Court will 

resolve the objection. If there are no objections, the parties shall pay the Special Master’s invoice 

within 60 days of receipt. The Special Master shall be compensated at a rate of $875.00 per hour.

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:9497
DCACTIVE-72132642.1

DEFENDANTS’ DRAFT 4.13.23

5

For cause or when fairness dictates, the Special Master may recommend that the Court shift or 

reallocate between the parties the costs of and expenses related to her services. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

53(g)(3).

10. This Order may be amended after notice to the parties and an opportunity to be 

heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________ _____________________________________

Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan

Case: 1:20-cv-01853 Document #: 441 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:9498