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

Filing 311

ORDER ON 304 JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NEWMARK & COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 4/25/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
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)
ORDER ON JOINT STATEMENT RE
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT NEWMARK &
COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Re: Dkt. No. 304

12
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Statement Regarding Motion to Compel Responses to

13
14

Defendant Newmark & Company’s First Set of Interrogatories. ECF 304. Defendants seek to

15

compel Plaintiff to provide amended responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-

16

5.

17

According to the joint statement, Plaintiff has already agreed to supplement its responses

18

to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5. ECF 304 at 2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’

19

motion to compel as it relates to those interrogatories, without prejudice to Defendants’ ability to

20

file a further joint statement if, following meet and confer, issues remain with respect to Plaintiff’s

21

supplemental responses.

22

The only ripe issue is with respect to Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 2. That

23

interrogatory seeks all facts relating the Plaintiff’s allegation in its Complaint and elsewhere that it

24

has been damaged by Defendants’ use of “NEWMARK.” Defendants argue that they are entitled

25

to such information in order to understand Plaintiff’s damages theory. Plaintiff argues that it need

26

not supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 2 because (1) Plaintiff intends to seek recovery of

27

Defendants’ profits; (2) information about what conduct and activity Defendants have engaged in

28

that purportedly damaged Plaintiff can be found in Plaintiff’s pleadings; (3) the answer to the

1

question of when Plaintiff believes it began to suffer damages “is dependent on when the

2

infringing activity began which will be revealed in discovery”; (4) Plaintiff’s answers depend at

3

least in part on Defendants’ production of documents, including financial information; and

4

(5) Defendant Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. has served more than 25 interrogatories.

5

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No.

6

2. Plaintiff may not simply rely on its pleadings but must provide all available, responsive

7

information concerning its damage theory. If Plaintiff’s damages theory is that it is entitled to

8

Defendants’ profits, it must provide an interrogatory response so stating. Fact discovery closes in

9

just a few days, and Plaintiff must provide a response with as much detail as possible based on the
information it has to date. Although it appears that Defendants were somewhat careless in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

propounding interrogatories in such a way that resulted in Defendant N&Co. exceeding the limit

12

of 25 interrogatories per party, the Court will permit such already-served interrogatories on the

13

grounds that the total number of interrogatories as between the two Defendants does not exceed

14

the limits set in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

15
16

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 25, 2018

17
18
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2