*1 By letter dated November 22, 2011, Defendant, Scott Pontone, through counsel, submitted three discrete but somewhat voluminous discovery disputes to the undersigned. First, Scott Pontone moved to compel Plaintiffs to respond or to respond more completely to numerous of Mr. Pontone's first and second discovery requests to which Plaintiffs had objected. (Dispute No. 1 as identified in Scott Pontone's November 22, 2011 submission). Second, Scott Pontone requested that Plaintiffs produce three redacted documents in unredacted and native format (Dispute No. 2 as identified in Scott Pontone's November 22, 2011 submission). Finally, Scott Pontone challenged as overbroad Plaintiffs' designations of documents as “confidential” or “attorney's eyes only” under the terms of the Amended Stipulated Protective Order in this case. (Dispute No. 5 as identified in counsel for Scott Pontone's November 22, 2011 submission).

Plaintiffs responded to Scott Pontone's submission regarding each of the disputes identified above on December 5, 2011. Subsequently, counsel for Scott Pontone requested leave to file a reply and the undersigned granted leave to file a short reply (not to exceed three pages) by close of business on Monday, December 19, 2011. Having now received Scott Pontone's reply and carefully reviewed the arguments of the Parties, this matter is ripe for decision.[1]

I have set forth below, on a discovery request by discovery request basis, my recommended determination regarding Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel.

1. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: After careful consideration, Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. Plaintiffs have adequately described the confidential information that they believe Scott Pontone has misappropriated and allegedly used or is using in breach of either contractual or common law duties. Plaintiffs have also specified that the information described (key customer contact information, strategies for prospective/targeted customers, purchasing trends, customer preferences and rebate pricing and discount information) is specific to 37 identified customers in the New York metro region (as that term is defined by Plaintiffs).[2] The allegedly confidential information has been adequately identified and described in my opinion so as to permit Defendant Scott Pontone to challenge whether or not the information is in fact confidential, whether Plaintiffs took reasonable steps to maintain its confidentiality and, of course, whether Scott Pontone misappropriated any confidential information or otherwise committed the breaches alleged by Plaintiffs.

*2 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiffs have agreed to identify the specific entity that employed each of the individual former employees set forth on Exhibit A, attached to Plaintiffs Objections and Answers to Scott Pontone's First Discovery Request. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall provide the employer information to counsel for Scott Pontone within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

3. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Plaintiffs have agreed to produce documents responsive to this request seeking a listing of funeral homes and funeral home contact information in the State of New York and shall do so within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

1. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: After considering the Parties' arguments, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. The business telephone numbers provided by Plaintiffs in response to this interrogatory are sufficient given the nature of the claims and defenses in this case.

2. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: After careful consideration of the Parties' submissions, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs need not supply the personal e-mail addresses used by the individuals identified in Interrogatory No. 2 and in this Interrogatory. With respect to Defendant, Scott Pontone's request for the last known addresses of the individuals identified in Interrogatory No. 3 (who I understand to be members of Plaintiff, Matthews International's Board of Directors), Plaintiffs should provide those last known addresses ONLY IF Plaintiffs' counsel is not willing to accept service of any Subpoenas that might be issued to any of these individuals to testify or produce documents. If Plaintiffs' counsel makes this commitment to accept subpoenas to counsel for Scott Pontone, Plaintiffs need not provide the last known addresses for these individuals.

3. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: After careful consideration of the Parties' submissions, Defendant, Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. The information sought in this interrogatory is not relevant to the claims asserted in this action and, in my judgment, is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information. In the event that Defendant, Scott Pontone files a Counterclaim in this action that arguably renders this information relevant, he may file an appropriate motion to compel at or after that time, subject to Plaintiffs' right to again oppose that motion.

4. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: After careful consideration of the Parties' submissions, Defendant, Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. In my judgment, the information sought in this interrogatory is irrelevant to any of the claims and defenses in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information.

5. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Plaintiffs have agreed to search for and produce documents in their possession responsive to this request and they should do so within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

6. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Scott Pontone's request for all agenda, minutes and transcripts for every Board of Directors meeting of Plaintiffs York, Milso and Matthews from January 1, 2006 to the present is, in my judgment, overly broad. As per my Report and Recommendation dated December 14, 2011 regarding the “redaction issue”, those Board minutes addressing any of the Defendants or the death services business in the New York metro region should be produced in unredacted form or provided to the undersigned for an in camera review. Thus, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied.

*3 7. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: For the reasons set forth in my discussion of the Motion to Compel regarding Request for Production No. 4, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied.

8. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Plaintiffs represent that they have produced any non-privileged documents responsive to this request and, therefore, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. To the extent that counsel for Plaintiffs has not yet set forth on their privilege log a description of those documents responsive to this request to which they claim privilege, they should do so within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

9. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: After careful consideration of the Parties' submissions, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. The request for documents and communications between Glenn Mahone and Reed Smith concerning the filing of “any other lawsuit on behalf of Matthews, York, or Milso” is, in my judgment, overly broad and objectionable on its face. The request for documents and communications between Mr. Mahone and Reed Smith concerning the filing of this lawsuit is arguably relevant, but such documents likely are protected by either the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. To the extent such responsive documents exist, however, counsel for Plaintiffs should include them on Plaintiffs' privilege log if they have not already done so.

10. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Plaintiffs, in their response to Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel, represent that they have produced any non-privileged documents responsive to this request. Thus, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied as moot. Again, counsel for Plaintiffs shall ensure that they have listed any responsive documents protected under the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine on their privilege logs.

11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Plaintiffs, in their response, have agreed to produce any indemnification agreements, policies or arrangements that relate to Scott Pontone or Harry Pontone, in their capacities as former officers and/or directors of any of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel, therefore, is denied as moot. Plaintiffs shall produce any such responsive documents within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

12. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: As Plaintiffs correctly note in their response, Brian Walters, an employee of Plaintiff, Matthews International Corp., is only mentioned in one paragraph of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (¶ 84) in which it is alleged that Mr. Walters heard certain statements made by Defendant, Harry Pontone, in a specific conversation. In that context, therefore, it is my judgment that Defendant, Scott Pontone, is not entitled to documents relating to Mr. Walters' compensation, stock options, benefits or a copy of his employment agreement with Matthews. To the extent Scott Pontone wants to argue bias with respect to Mr. Walters, he is able to do so by pointing out that Mr. Walters is employed by Matthews in an important and significant position (Vice President and General Counsel of Matthews) in which he is compensated by Matthews and provided benefits. Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel, therefore, is denied.

*4 13. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: For the reasons set forth in my decision regarding Request for Production No. 13, I agree with Plaintiffs that documents regarding Joseph Bartolacci's compensation and benefits are not relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information. Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel, therefore, is denied.

14. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Consistent with my recommended decision regarding Request for Production Nos. 13 and 14, I agree with Plaintiffs that the compensation, stock options, benefits and employment agreements for each of the individuals listed in Request for Production No. 15 are not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information. Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel, therefore, is denied.

15. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: I agree with counsel for Scott Pontone that Defendants are entitled to discover evidence to support any argument or defense that the loss of business Plaintiffs suffered from the 37 New York metro region funeral home customers identified by Plaintiffs was caused by reasons other than the actions of Josephine Pesce, Joey Redmond or Defendants Scott Pontone and Harry Pontone. In my judgment, however, the “performance reviews” sought by Defendant Scott Pontone in this Request for Production are not relevant to such arguments nor calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information. Because Defendants have the ability to obtain discovery from any or all of the 37 identified customers regarding their reasons for doing or not doing business with any of the Plaintiffs, I see no need to obtain tenuous and very indirect evidence relating to the management of Plaintiffs' businesses. For those reasons, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied.

16. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Although not clear from the submissions of the Parties, it appears that counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant Scott Pontone did not make sufficient attempts to reach agreement on the scope of certain terms to be used in searching the electronically stored information (“ESI”) of relevant custodians. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit counsel for Scott Pontone to dictate what search terms are used no more than they permit counsel for Plaintiffs to unilaterally decide what search terms they will use. Ideally, there should be a written document that details the ESI to be searched, the search methodology to be used and the search terms or queries to be run. Because we do not have any such agreement or document in this case, I am at somewhat of a disadvantage. Nevertheless, based on my review of the Parties' submissions, I agree with Plaintiffs that it is not necessary to conduct ESI searches for any non-employee director of any of the Plaintiffs. As for the individuals for whom Plaintiffs agreed to conduct a search, Plaintiffs must submit in writing to counsel for all Defendants, a description of the searches they did run, including search methodology, search terms or search phrases used, any date limitations employed in the searches and the results (by number of hits) of each search term or search phrase. Upon receipt of that written document, I will schedule a telephone conference with counsel for all the Parties to address this particular request and Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel.

*5 17. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Plaintiffs, in their response, agreed to search again for documents in their possession responsive to this request. Plaintiffs shall produce any responsive directories published or compiled by third-parties (other than telephone books or yellow pages) responsive to this request that were in any of Plaintiffs' possession from the date that Defendants Scott Pontone and Harry Pontone began employment with Plaintiffs to the present.

18. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: After careful consideration of the arguments of both Defendant Scott Pontone and Plaintiffs, it is my judgment that the documents sought by Scott Pontone, regarding the possibility of Plaintiff, Matthews' acquisition of Aurora Casket Company, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information. For that reason, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied.

19. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Because the alleged deficiency identified by Defendant Scott Pontone in his Motion to Compel related to this request is that Plaintiffs have not produced any documents in response to the request and Plaintiffs, in their response, identify documents they have produced responsive to this request, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. To the extent that Plaintiffs have additional documents responsive to this request relating to any of the 37 funeral homes to which they have limited their claims in this case, covering calendar years 2010 to date, they should produce those documents to Defendant Scott Pontone within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

20. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Because the alleged deficiency identified by Defendant Scott Pontone in his Motion to Compel related to this request is that Plaintiffs have produced no document responsive to the request and Plaintiffs, in their response, commit to produce responsive documents for the persons requested, other than Linda Bartolacci (who is not an employee of any the Plaintiffs), to the extent they reflect visits to the 37 funeral home customers to which Plaintiffs have limited their claims in this case, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. Plaintiffs should produce those responsive documents within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation. To the extent that Defendant Scott Pontone wishes to seek documents from non-party, Linda Bartolacci, Defendant Scott Pontone must do so through an appropriate Subpoena.

21. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Because Plaintiffs, in their response to Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel, represent that they conducted a search for any documents in their possession responsive to this request and found none, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied.

22. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Because the alleged deficiency asserted by Defendant Scott Pontone in his Motion to Compel regarding this request is that Plaintiffs have produced no documents responsive to this request and Plaintiffs, in their response, identify responsive documents they have produced, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied.

23. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Based on the Parties' submissions with respect to this request, they have reached an agreement whereby Scott Pontone has limited this request solely to deposition transcripts of the individuals identified in Request for Production No. 34 in prior litigation with Scott Pontone and/or the Nazzaro litigation which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs have agreed to produce transcripts responsive to this request, as narrowed by Scott Pontone, and they should do so within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

*6 24. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Plaintiffs, in their response, claim that they have produced documents in their possession responsive to this request. The undersigned, however, agrees with Defendant Scott Pontone that Plaintiffs' limitation of its production to responsive documents for the period ending with the start of this litigation in 2010 is too restrictive with respect to any responsive documents regarding Harry Pontone. Thus, Plaintiffs should produce any responsive documents regarding Harry Pontone through and including September 30, 2011 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation. If Plaintiffs have no documents regarding Harry Pontone responsive to this request other than the documents they have already produced, they should confirm that fact in writing to counsel for Scott Pontone with a copy to the undersigned.

25. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: In their response, Plaintiffs agree to produce any business cards for the seven individuals listed in this request to which they initially objected. Plaintiffs should do so within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

26. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: To the extent Plaintiffs in fact have documents in their possession, custody or control responsive to this request, they should be produced. If they do not, they should so indicate in a writing directed to counsel for Defendant Scott Pontone with a copy to the undersigned.

27. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Plaintiffs, in their response to Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel regarding this request, represent that they have produced documents responsive to this request and that those documents (records of payments made by any Plaintiffs to Josephine Pesce and Joey Redmond from January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010) do indicate which of the Plaintiffs issued the payment. In her reply submission, however, counsel for Scott Pontone provided examples of earnings statements for Josephine Pesce that do not indicate on their face the entity issuing the statement. Thus, Plaintiffs should either identify in writing the issuing entity or provide in writing to counsel for Scott Pontone the Bates numbers of previously-produced documents that contain the employer information. In all other respects, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel regarding this discovery request is denied.

28. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: The undersigned's review of this Request for Production indicates that it is directed at the discovery of potentially relevant documents related to Plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim which has been dismissed by the Court. For that reason, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel regarding this request is denied without prejudice to Scott Pontone establishing some other basis for the relevancy of the requested documents.

29. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Despite the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for trademark infringement, it is my judgment that the documents responsive to this request are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information with respect to the sale of caskets in the New York metro region (as defined by Plaintiffs in this action). Thus, Plaintiffs should produce any documents responsive to this request to the extent they relate to the New York metro region within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

30. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Plaintiffs' response to Defendants Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel regarding this request indicates that Plaintiffs have searched for and produced documents response to this request and that the document produced in redacted form will be produced again in unredacted form. Based on that representation, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied. Plaintiffs should produce the unredacted version of the second responsive document within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

*7 31. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: After carefully reviewing the submissions of both Parties, it is my judgment that any damages analysis or reports prepared, used and/or produced by the Plaintiffs or Defendants in the Nazzaro litigation, which, as Plaintiffs point out, involves different parties, allegations, claims for relief and damages than in this case, are too remote to be relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case. For that reason, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied.

32. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: After careful consideration of the submissions of the Parties with respect to this request, I agree that Plaintiffs' objections to the request are meritorious. In my judgment, any documents concerning Scott Pontone, Harry Pontone and Batesville that are in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control and are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case are covered by the totality of Defendant Scott Pontone first and second discovery requests. Thus, it would be burdensome and unnecessary for Plaintiffs to either produce the entire production from the Nazzaro litigation or analyze each of the 22,377 pages of documents produced in that case for any that might potentially be relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation. Of course, if a document produced by Plaintiffs in the Nazzaro case is also responsive to Defendant Scott Pontone's discovery requests (as narrowed by sustained objections and this Report and Recommendation), those documents should be produced assuming they have not already been produced.

33. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: For the reasons set forth above in my discussion and ruling with respect to Request for Production No. 48, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied.

34. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: In their response to Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel regarding this request, Plaintiffs represent that they have searched for and produced any non-privileged documents in their possession responsive to this request. Plaintiffs, however, do not identify by Bates number those documents. Thus, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is denied with the exception that counsel for Plaintiffs shall identify in writing to counsel for Scott Pontone those documents (by Bates number) that they produced responsive to this request.

35. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: After careful review of the Parties' submissions regarding this request for production, it is my judgment that Plaintiffs' response to this request for production is adequate and that the information redacted from the annual business reviews for each of the years June 1, 2007 to the present is consistent with my previous Report and Recommendation and Memorandum Decision regarding the “redaction issue”. Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel relating to this request, therefore, is denied.

36. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: After careful consideration of the Parties' submissions regarding this request, it is my judgment that Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel is well-founded with respect to this request Even though Plaintiffs arguably have limited their damage claims to the 37 funeral homes within the New York metro region as identified in response to Request for Production No. 23, documents relating to Plaintiffs' loss of casket sales in the New York metro region with respect to any customers within that region may be relevant to issues of causation. Therefore, subject to Plaintiffs right to designate those documents under the Parties' Amended Stipulated Protective Order, Plaintiffs should produce additional responsive documents to Defendant Scott Pontone within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

*8 37. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: After careful review of the Parties' submissions regarding this request for production, it is my judgment that Plaintiffs' representation that they have searched for and produced any responsive documents relating to Scott Pontone, Josephine Pesce and Joey Redmond responsive to this request is adequate. Any responsive documents relating to any individuals other than Scott Pontone, Josephine Pesce and Joey Redmond are irrelevant and not calculated to lead to discovery of relevant and admissible information. Plaintiffs' counsel, however, should identify in writing to counsel for Scott Pontone (by Bates number) those documents responsive to this request that Plaintiffs have produced within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

38. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Because Plaintiffs, in their response, represent that they have searched for and produced documents in their possession responsive to this request and have identified the Bates numbers of those responsive documents, Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel related to this request is denied.

39. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Based on Plaintiffs' response, Plaintiffs are willing to search for and produce additional casket weekly updates for the period March 1, 2010 through June 22, 2010 responsive to this request. Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel, therefore, is denied as moot. Plaintiffs should produce those additional responsive documents within thirty (30) days of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

Dispute No. 2 in Defendant Scott Pontone's November 22, 2011 submission to the undersigned is based on Plaintiffs' redaction of three lengthy spreadsheet reports which, according to Plaintiffs' counsel, contain thousands of pages regarding customers other than the 37 funeral home customers Plaintiffs have put at issue in this case. Because the redacted information in these documents consists of customer and marketing information, it is consistent with my previous Report and Recommendation and Memorandum Decision re Defendant Scott Pontone's Motion to Compel Production of Redacted Documents. What I cannot determine from the Parties' submissions, however, is whether the three documents in question also contain information regarding funeral home customers in the New York metro region (as defined by Plaintiffs in this litigation). In my judgment, information regarding funeral home customers in the New York metro region, other than the 37 customers whose loss of business forms a substantial part of Plaintiffs' damage claims in this case, may be relevant to issues of causation and damages in this case. For example, information regarding other customers in the New York metro region demonstrating that those customers are not doing business with Plaintiffs or reducing their amount of business with Plaintiffs because of product quality, service or other reasons could be relevant evidence from which Defendants can argue that these same issues caused the loss of some or all the 37 funeral home customers identified by Plaintiffs in this case.

My example above is not meant to suggest that the three documents in question in fact contain such information, but the discovery process is designed to permit Parties to make that determination. Plaintiffs themselves have sought discovery regarding Defendant Batesville's Project Capri which, as I understand it, was directed to the New York metro region as a whole and, therefore, similar discovery regarding customers in that same region is potentially relevant or, at a minimum, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible information. For that reason, Plaintiffs should produce any additional pages from the three documents in question that relate to customers within the New York metro region. Any customer information outside the New York metro region can be redacted.

*9 In this motion, counsel for Defendant Scott Pontone requests that the Protective Order in this case be amended to (i) permit any Party to challenge a producing party's confidentiality designations at any time and (ii) require the Party to whom the challenge is submitted to consider the challenge in good faith and to respond to the challenge within five (5) business days.[3]

In the spirit of compromise which is greatly appreciated by the undersigned, counsel for Plaintiffs agrees to Scott Pontone's proposal with the further caveat that any disputes regarding confidentiality designations be brought to the undersigned in the first instance rather than being submitted to the Court as currently required. See, Amended Stipulated Protective Order ¶ 8.

My only difficulty with this otherwise welcome agreement between counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Scott Pontone is that the Protective Order also includes Defendant Batesville as a Party. In order for this amended procedure for challenging confidentiality designations under the Protective Order to be applicable to Batesville, counsel for Batesville will have to consent to the amended procedure in writing.

At least with respect to challenges by and between Defendant Scott Pontone, Harry Pontone, Pontone Casket Company (the “Pontone Defendants”) and Plaintiffs, therefore, the Protective Order is amended as follows:

Mark D. Shepard

Special Discovery Master

Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C.

Two Gateway Center, 6th Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

(412) 394-5400

mshepard@babstcalland.com

Firm ID No. 812

After reviewing the comprehensive submissions by counsel for Scott Pontone and counsel for Plaintiffs, the undersigned decided that neither argument nor hearing was necessary to make a decision regarding each of these disputes and so informed counsel for all Parties by e-mail dated December 13, 2011.

In Answer to Interrogatory No. 8 in Defendant Scott Pontone's Second Amended Discovery Requests, Plaintiffs define the New York metro region as including all five boroughs of New York City, the surrounding New York area, including Nassau, Suffolk, West Chester and Rockland counties, and the surrounding New Jersey area, including Bergen, Essex, Union, Hudson and Middlesex counties.

Under the specific terms of the Protective Order currently, a Party wishing to challenge a confidentiality designation is supposed to do so within thirty (30) days of receipt of the designated documents. See, Amended Stipulated Protective Order ¶ 7.

In the event counsel for Batesville agrees to this same amendment, the same procedure shall apply to any challenge to Batesville's designations or any challenge by Batesville to another Party's designations.