Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. et al

Filing 133

ORDER ON PARTIES' JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING (In re: ECF Nos. 119 and 122 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 11/16/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-01702-BLF (SVK)

v.
BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ON PARTIES' JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS AND
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL
BRIEFING
Re: Dkt. Nos. 119, 122

12

On October 19, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter brief regarding Plaintiff’s motion to

13

compel Defendants’ production of additional documents. ECF 119. On October 26, 2017, the

14

parties filed a joint letter brief regarding Defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses and

15

the production of additional documents by Plaintiff. ECF 122. On November 15, 2017, the Court

16

held a hearing on both joint discovery letter briefs. At the hearing the Court was informed that

17

Plaintiff had served document requests on November 8, 2017, directed to subjects that had been

18

identified during the course of the parties’ meet and confer efforts and potentially superseding

19

issues presented in Plaintiff’s motion to compel. As a result, where issues had been presented to

20

the Court but were no longer ripe due to the November 8 requests, the Court provided guidance

21

for the parties’ meet and confer efforts. Where appropriate, the Court proceeded with ordering

22

action by the parties. The Court’s guidelines and the parties’ obligations as discussed at the

23

hearing are set forth in the Court record. For clarity and ease of reference, the Court also provides

24

the following written ORDER:

25

(1) At the November 15 hearing, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce documents

26

containing the client identity and location information requested in Defendant’s RFP 3

27

by December 8, 2017. Plaintiff requested an opportunity to submit further briefing as

28

to why it should not be required to produce this information, which the Court denied at

1

the hearing. Upon reconsideration, the Court will entertain further briefing on this

2

issue. By November 21, 2017, Plaintiff may file a letter brief not to exceed 3 pages on

3

this issue; Plaintiff should not reiterate the objections Plaintiff has already raised as to

4

the burden of producing this information and the confidential nature of the information.

5

By November 28, 2017, Defendant may file a response to Plaintiff’s letter brief, not to

6

exceed three pages.
(2) By December 1, 2017, the parties must negotiate and submit to the Court a stipulated

7
8

ESI order or a joint motion identifying any areas of disagreement concerning an ESI

9

order to be entered in this case.
(3) By December 8, 2017, Defendant must do the following:

10

a. Respond to the requests for production served by Plaintiff on November 8,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2017 (“the November 8 RFPs”);

12
13

b. Produce data concerning broker transactions from 2015-present, as discussed at

14

the joint letter brief regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF 119) at 1;

15

c. Produce documents in response to the November 8 RFP(s) that correspond to

16

the following items identified in the joint letter brief regarding Plaintiff’s

17

motion to compel (ECF 119), subject to any objections that Defendants may

18

make in response to those November 8 RFP(s):
i. Meet and confer category1 10 as it relates to organizational charts for

19

Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc.; and

20
ii.

21

Meet and confer category 11 as it relates to business cards and

22

stationery for Barry Gosin, James Kuhn, Kevin Shannon, David

23

Milestone, and Paul Talbot.
(4) By December 8, 2017, Plaintiff must do the following:

24

a. Provide Defendants with a list of names and companies of recipients of the

25

email from Plaintiff regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit against one of

26
27
1

28

The “meet and confer category” numbers refer to the categories described in Plaintiff’s July 19,
2017 letter to Defendants.
2

Defendants’ former brokers; and

1
2

b. Serve supplemental responses that comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

34(b)(2) for the 12 RFPs for which Plaintiff has not yet served such

4

supplemental responses.

5

(5) By December 15, 2017, Defendants must produce the documents in response to the

6

November 8 RFP(s) that correspond to the following items in the joint letter brief

7

concerning Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF 119), subject to any objections that

8

Defendants may make in response to those November 8 RFP(s):

9
10

a. Meet and confer category 2; and
b. Meet and confer category 3.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(6) As to the production of additional documents in the categories discussed above and as

12

to all remaining issues raised by the parties in their joint discovery letter briefs, the

13

parties must engage in further robust, good faith meet and confer efforts, involving

14

persons with authority to reach compromise on those disputes, following the guidance

15

provided by the Court at the November 15, 2017 hearing.

16

(7) The Court expects the parties to resolve their discovery disputes through meet and

17

confer. If it is necessary to involve the Court in any remaining dispute, the parties

18

must provide a joint status report summarizing the dispute(s) in a chart identifying each

19

disputed issue and setting forth each party’s proposal on that dispute, without further

20

argument. The parties must also submit to the Court the particular discovery request(s) at

21

issue.

22
23

SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2017

24
25
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
3