ENGAGE HEALTHCARE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC. et al v. INTELLISPHERE, LLC. et al

Filing 226

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiffs' Application for Reconsideration of Special Master Order No. 7 is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman on 8/16/2017. (mps)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ENGAGE HEALTHCARE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC., et al.,

Civil Action No. 12-787 (FLW)(LHG)

Plaintiffs,
ORDER ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
INTELLISPHERE, LLC., et al.,

Defendants.

This matter has been opened to the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Special
Master Marc E. Wolin, Esq. [Docket Entry No. 221], recommending that Plaintiffs’ application for
reconsideration of Special Master Order No. 7 [Docket Entry No. 219] be denied. Pursuant to the Order
Appointing Special Master, a party wishing to object to a Special Master’s recommendation was to file a
motion with the Court within 21 days of filing of the Report and Recommendation. [Docket Entry No.
205 at ¶6]. No objection has been filed in response to the Report and Recommendation or the
accompanying Order [Docket Entry No. 222] filed by the Special Master.
According to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs filed a request to have the Special
Master reconsider Order No. 7, which set forth a timeframe requiring Plaintiffs to identify what
additional discovery was needed regarding the unresolved issue of whether the trademarks described in
the First Amended Complaint had acquired secondary meaning [Docket Entry No. 221 at 1-2]. Special
Master Order No. 7 arose from Defendants’ request to file a motion for partial summary judgment, id.,
and the timeframe provided in the order reflected Plaintiffs’ own assertions regarding the amount of
time needed to provide the requested information. Id. at 4-5. On May 22, 2017, the Special Master made
a verbal ruling and created a timeframe which would require Plaintiffs to compile a list of the required

discovery by June 5, 2017. Id. On May 30, 2017, this ruling was memorialized as Special Master Order
No. 7. Id. at 5. On June 1, 2017, Plaintiffs requested that the Special Master reconsider Special Order
No. 7, and the Special Master stayed the order while Plaintiffs’ request was under consideration. Id. Per
the Special Master, Plaintiffs have not articulated a sufficient basis to reconsider the timeframe reflected
in Order No. 7, and have not met the high burden of demonstrating that Order No. 7 should be vacated.
Id. at 5-6.
No party has filed an objection to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and
accompanying Order. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and the
accompanying Order of the Special Master.
For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this day 16th of August, 2017,
ORDERED that the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Special Master’s ruling as articulated
in the Report and Recommendation and accompanying Order [Docket Entry Nos. 221-222];
accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Application for Reconsideration of Special Master Order No. 7 [Docket Entry
No. 219] is DENIED.

LOIS H. GOODMAN
United States Magistrate Judge