ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING DOCUMENTS LISTED ON DEFENDNANT'S PRIVILEGE LOG AND/OR FOR AN IN CAMERA INSPECTION (DE 49)

ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's motion to compel documents listed on Defendant's privilege log (DE 49), Defendant's response in opposition (DE 57), Plaintiff's reply (DE 62) and the parties' joint list of unresolved issues (DE 65.) Plaintiff seeks to compel communications made by a human resources team reviewing his ADA request with in-house counsel, Anthony W. Dalimonte. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges fifteen items listed in Defendant's privilege log and seeks an in camera review of those items to determine if any of the documents are not protected (or are only partially protected) by attorney-client privilege. (See DE 57-1 at 8-9.)

This matter came before me for a hearing on March 23, 2016. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, I conclude that eleven of the fifteen entries in the privilege log lacked sufficient detail as to the subject matter of the communications. The four entries containing sufficient detail are: 1) the 3/18-19/14 communication authored by Maria Conliffe and Kelly Szafranski; 2) the 4/22/14 communication authored by Joan Treves and Leslie Harris; 3) the 4/24/14 communication authored by Karen Humes; and 4) the 4/28/14 communication authored by Anthony Dalimonte and Karen Humes. (DE 57-1 at 8-9.) As to the remaining eleven entries, Defendant is hereby ORDERED to amend its privilege log to include sufficient detail as to the subject matter of the communications. Defendant shall file its amended privilege log ON OR BEFORE MARCH 30, 2016 for my review. If I conclude that the privilege log still lacks sufficient detail, I will order an in camera review of the relevant documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.