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

Filing 253

ORDER ON (1) 234 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DISCOVERY LIMITS; (2) 246 DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SERVE SUBPOENAS BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS; AND (3) 248 JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO DAVID MILESTONE AND KEVIN SHANNON. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 3/20/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC., Plaintiff, 8 13 ORDER ON (1) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DISCOVERY LIMITS; (2) DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SERVE SUBPOENAS BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS; AND (3) JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO DAVID MILESTONE AND KEVIN SHANNON 14 Re: Dkt. Nos. 234, 246, 248 v. 9 10 BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-cv-01702-BLF (SVK) 12 Before the Court are three discovery disputes: (1) Defendants’ motion for modification of 15 16 discovery limits or enforcement of agreement re depositions (ECF 234); (2) Defendants’ 17 administrative motion to serve subpoenas by alternative means (ECF 246); and (3) the parties’ 18 joint statement regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel documents related to David Milestone and 19 Kevin Shannon (ECF 248). On March 20, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the three disputes. 20 The Court’s guidelines and the parties’ obligations as discussed at the hearing are set forth in the 21 Court record. For clarity and ease of reference, the Court also provides the following written 22 order. 23 24 (1) On Defendants’ motion for modification of discovery limits or enforcement of agreement re depositions, the Court ORDERS as follows: 25 a. Defendants may take continued depositions of George Mitsanas, Michael 26 Heagerty, and Mark Ritchie. Each deposition shall be limited to 3 hours, 27 regardless of whether the witness’s original deposition reached the 7-hour limit 28 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1). 1 b. Defendants may take the depositions of Plaintiff’s founders, Bill Monheit and 2 Mitch Zeemont. The normal one day, 7-hour limit applies to each deposition. 3 4 5 c. Defendants may take the depositions of an additional 5 fact witnesses. Each deposition shall be limited to one half-day of 3.5 hours. d. Defendants may take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff. The parties are 6 directed to meet and confer in good faith regarding a reasonable scope for this 7 deposition. 8 e. The limits set forth above do not apply to the possible deposition of Michelle Khan. The parties are directed to meet and confer in good faith regarding their 10 disputes over that deposition and, if they are unable to resolve them, to present 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 them in accordance with the undersigned’s Civil Scheduling and Discovery 12 Standing Order as soon as possible. 13 14 f. This order relates to fact depositions only; the limits set forth above do not apply to depositions of expert witnesses. 15 (2) On Defendants’ administrative motion for leave to serve subpoenas for documents and 16 testimony on third-party witness Chris Caras by alternative means is GRANTED. 17 Plaintiff’s counsel must notify Defendants’ counsel within 24 hours as to whether 18 Plaintiff’s counsel is authorized to accept service of the subpoenas on behalf of Mr. 19 Caras. If not, Defendant may serve the subpoenas on Mr. Caras via overnight mail 20 addressed to his place of business, with copies sent via email to his business email 21 address and to Plaintiff’s counsel. 22 (3) On the parties’ joint statement regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel documents 23 related to David Milestone and Kevin Shannon, the Court refers the parties to the 24 discussion at the hearing on November 15, 2017 regarding the scope of production and 25 ORDERS as follows: 26 a. No later than 12:00 p.m. PDT on March 22, 2018, Defendants must provide a 27 signed declaration under oath explaining how they conducted the search for 28 responsive documents concerning Messrs. Milestone and Shannon, including 2 1 the sources that were searched and the search parameters that were used. If, in 2 the process of preparing the declaration, Defendants identify additional steps 3 that need to be taken to collect responsive documents regarding these 4 individuals, Defendants shall identify those steps in a cover letter to be filed 5 with the Court by the same deadline. 6 b. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a response to Defendants’ submission 7 no later than 12:00 p.m. PDT on March 23, 2018. Plaintiff’s response shall not 8 exceed 2 pages. 9 (4) The parties’ filings and their arguments at the hearing indicate that they may have other unresolved discovery disputes, such as a dispute over ESI terms. As the Court 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 instructed the parties at the hearing, the parties are ORDERED to engage in robust, 12 good faith meet and confer in an effort to resolve their disputes, with an eye towards 13 the case schedule, under which fact discovery will end on April 27, 2018 (ECF 35). 14 15 SO ORDERED. Dated: March 20, 2018 16 17 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?