ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the report and recommendation (the "R&R") Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins issued on April 13, 2015. (Doc. # 61). Magistrate Judge Jenkins recommended granting non-party and Proposed Intervenors', B.G., D.M. et al., Motion to Intervene for the Purpose of Protecting Hughes Class Members' Privacy Interests and Right to Counsel. (Doc. # 39). Defendant, GRADY JUDD, filed his objections, (Doc. # 64), on April 27, 2015, to which Proposed Intervenors Responded, (Doc. # 65), on May 11, 2015. For the reasons that follow, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact in the report and recommendation, the district court should make a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State of Georgia, 896 f.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990). However, when no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates that the court should review the findings using a clearly erroneous standard. Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993). No timely objections were filed.

DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and made an independent review of the record. Defendant's objection is based on the Conclusions of Law and Findings of Fact District Judge Steven D. Merryday issued in Hughes v. Judd. 2015 WL 1737871 (M.D. Fla. April 16, 2015). Specifically, Defendant objects to the intervention because the aforementioned order extinguishes the Hughes class members' rights, and thus moots any claims the Hughes class members might assert. The Proposed Intervenors assert although the merits of their case were decided, their "privacy interest to ensure the continued redaction of [the Proposed Intervenors'] names for events that occurred while they were minors" were not mooted due to the Hughes decision. Upon due consideration, the Court concurs with the report and recommendation, as well as the Proposed Intervenors' contention that their privacy interest have not expired.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. # 61), is adopted and incorporated by reference; the Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene, (Doc. # 39), is GRANTED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to SEAL docket entries 14, 25, and 34.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant continue to redact Hughes class members' names for the remainder of litigation.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's counsel (and any agents thereof) refrain from communication with Hughes class members relating to the conditions of their confinement without notice to and consent of Hughes' class counsel.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that, absent leave of Court, Defendant may not seek to re-depose youth deposed outside the presence of counsel.

DONE and ORDERED.