*1 This matter has been opened to the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Special Master Marc E. Wolin, Esq. (the “Special Master”) dated September 12, 2017 [Docket Entry No. 231]. The Special Master conducted an in camera review of 58 documents marked as privileged by Defendants; the Special Master then overruled Plaintiffs’ objection. [Docket Entry No. 230].

By Order dated August 11, 2016, this Court appointed the Special Master to address discovery disputes as they arise in this case. [Docket Entry No. 205]. Pursuant to the Order Appointing Special Master, a party wishing to object to the Special Master’s recommendation must file a motion with the Court within 21 days of filing of the Report and Recommendation. [Docket Entry No. 205 at ¶6]. On October 3, 2017, Plaintiffs timely filed Objections to Special Master Report and Recommendation No. 12 and Order No. 12 (Docket Entry No. 233) (“Plaintiffs’ Objections”), and Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ Objections on October 23, 2017. [Docket Entry No. 238]. Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Objections to Special Master Report and Recommendation [Docket Entry No. 240], which Defendants opposed. [Docket Entry No. 247].

Plaintiffs’ challenge pertains to documents that Defendants withheld from production on the ground that they are communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. [Docket Entry No. 231]. The Special Master required Defendants to provide an updated privilege log to both the Special Master and to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and to provide the Special Master with the challenged documents themselves for in camera review. Id. at 2. The Special Master also permitted counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants to brief the issue. Id.

The Special Master then conducted an in camera review of the 58 documents at issue. He determined that all of the 58 challenged documents were email communications, including email chains, from 2011 and 2012. Id. at 4. Shannon Hennessy Pulaski, Esq. was the author or a recipient of 57 of the 58 challenged email documents. The Special Master concluded that Ms. Pulaski serves as Defendants’ outside counsel, representing Defendants with regard to trademark issues. He then concluded that the 57 emails arising out of Ms. Pulaski’s role as trademark counsel were all communications covered by the attorney-client privilege. The remaining challenged document (Doc # 53 on Defendants’ privilege log) was a communication between two non-attorneys but the Special Master found that it was nonetheless properly withheld by Defendants because it is an “[e]mail chain, seeking, implementing and providing legal advice....” Id. at 6-7. Based on the parties’ submissions and the Special Master’s review, in camera, of all of the emails at issue, the Special Master found that there was no evidence of waiver or that the attorney-client privilege was otherwise lost with respect to any of the challenged documents.

This Court has conducted its own in camera review of the 58 challenged email documents.[1] The Court finds that the emails at issue were relevant, privileged communications and thus adopts the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated therein.

*2 Further, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs’ Objections have been sufficiently briefed and thus denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Objections to Special Master Report and Recommendation.

For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this day 21st November, 2017,

ORDERED that that the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and accompanying order [Docket Entry Nos. 230-231], such that Plaintiffs’ application is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Objections to Special Master Report and Recommendation [Docket Entry No. 240] is DENIED.