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

Filing 292

ORDER ON 275 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 4/19/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2018)

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
12

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

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

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 275

Before the Court are Defendants’ Statement Regarding Motion to Compel Responses to

13

Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Admission (ECF 275) and Plaintiff’s Response to

14

Defendants’ Statement (ECF 288). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s responses to a number of

15

Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) are deficient. ECF 275 at 2-4. Plaintiff responds that it has

16

agreed to supplement its responses to many of those RFAs by April 20, 2018, but that it will not

17

provide a supplemental response to RFA Nos. 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 44, 75, 96-100, 122, 132-135,

18

142, and 163 (the “Disputed RFAs”). ECF 288 at 1.

19
20

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court ORDERS as follows with respect to
the Disputed RFAs:

21
22

RFA
19

23
24
25
26
27
28

20

22

Order
Plaintiff’s objection as to vague and ambiguous is overruled.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA, in line with Court’s direction in re RFA 20.
Plaintiff’s response is an admission: Plaintiff does business as
Newmark, and Plaintiff has conducted the specified activity in
its business. No further response required.
Plaintiff’s response is an admission: Plaintiff does business as
Newmark, and Plaintiff has conducted the specified activity in
its business. No further response required.

RFA
24

Order
Plaintiff’s response is an admission: Plaintiff does business as
Newmark, and Plaintiff has conducted the specified activity in
its business. No further response required.

25

Plaintiff’s response is an admission: Plaintiff does business as
Newmark, and Plaintiff has conducted the specified activity in
its business. No further response required.

44

Plaintiff’s response is a denial: Defendant was not known as
“Newmark” in the commercial real estate industry in
connection with certain, specified commercial real estate
services. No further response required.

9

75

Defendants’ request for a supplemental response is denied.

10

96

Plaintiff’s objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

97

Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
Plaintiff’s objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.

14
15
16

98

Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
Plaintiff’s objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.

17
18
19

99

20
21
100
22
23
24

122

25
26
27

132

Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
Plaintiff’s objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
Plaintiff’s objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
Plaintiff’s response is a denial: Defendant did not use
“Newmark” before Plaintiff used “Newmark” in connection
with certain, specified commercial real estate services. No
further response is required.
Plaintiff’s objections sustained.

28
2

1
2

RFA
133

Order
Plaintiff’s objections sustained.

134

Plaintiff’s objections sustained.

135

Plaintiff’s objections sustained.

142

Plaintiff’s response is a denial: Defendant did not provide
certain, specified commercial real estate services before 2010.
No further response is required.

163

Plaintiff’s objections sustained.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Where the Court has ordered Plaintiff to supplement its responses to the Disputed RFAs,
those supplemental responses are due no later than April 25, 2018.
The Court will not rule at this time on those RFAs that Plaintiff has indicated it will
supplement by April 20, 2018. Plaintiff should consider the guidance provided by this Order in
preparing those supplemental responses, and the parties must continue their rigorous meet and

14
15
16

confer efforts. Should any issues remain with respect to those supplemental responses, the parties
must file a joint discovery letter brief that sets forth in a chart the disputed RFA, Plaintiff’s

17

response, Defendant’s grounds for compelling a further response, and provides a column for this

18

Court’s ruling, no later than April 27, 2018.

19
SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: April 19, 2018
21
22
23

SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3