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

Filing 228

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court Accepts and Adopts the Special Master's Report and Recommendation and accompanying order (Docket Entry Nos. 215 - 216 ), such that Defendants' application is denied. The parties shall me et and confer forthwith to resolve disputes as to the relevant documents. Plaintiffs shall promptly designate for in camera review by the Special Master all documents upon which agreement cannot be reached. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman on 8/23/2017. (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. 215], recommending that the application
by Defendants Intellisphere LLC, et al. (“Defendants”) to overrule the objections of Plaintiffs
Engage Health Care Communications, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) regarding Defendants’ redaction of
content responsive to Plaintiffs’ document requests be denied. The Special Master further
recommends that the parties meet and confer to resolve disputes regarding the redacted
documents, and that any documents for which an agreement is not reached be submitted to the
Special Master for in camera review. Id. at 3. 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. 216] filed by the Special Master.
According to the Report and Recommendation, on February 20, 2017, Defendants filed a
letter brief requesting that the Special Master rule that they did not need to unredact information

they deemed irrelevant to the case. [Docket Entry No. 215 at 2]. Defendants emphasized the
“highly sensitive” nature of the redacted information, asserting that its disclosure could
potentially damage their business, as opposing counsel represents Plaintiffs in various capacities
outside of this litigation. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs contended, in response, that case law forbids
Defendants from redacting otherwise discoverable documents, and that the multifaceted roles of
Plaintiffs’ counsel did not constitute sufficient reason to permit Defendants’ unilateral
redactions. Id. at 3.
No party has filed any 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 23rd August, 2017,
ORDERED that that the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Special Master’s Report
and Recommendation and accompanying order [Docket Entry Nos. 215-216], such that
Defendants’ application is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer forthwith to resolve, to the extent
possible, disputes as to the relevant documents; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall promptly designate for in camera review by the Special
Master all documents upon which agreement cannot be reached.

LOIS H. GOODMAN
United States Magistrate Judge