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

Filing 343

ORDER ON 337 CORRECTED JOINT STATEMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 164-255). Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 5/7/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC.,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER ON CORRECTED JOINT
STATEMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
ON DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SET OF
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS.
164-255)
Re: Dkt. No. 337

12
13

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

On the Corrected Joint Statement on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order on
Defendants’ Second Set of Requests for Admissions (ECF 337), the Court ORDERS as follows:

14



15

Plaintiff is not required to further respond to the existing Second Set of RFAs (Nos.
164-255).1 No later than noon on May 8, 2018, Defendants may re-serve a

16

reduced set of RFAs. From among the RFAs included in Defendants’ Second Set

17

of RFAs, Defendants may select (1) up to 25 substantive RFAs and (2) an

18

unlimited number of RFAs asking Plaintiff to admit or deny the genuineness of any

19

complete document (not portions of documents).

20



21

Plaintiff must serve responses to the reduced set of RFAs, consisting of answers
and/or objections, no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 9, 2018.

22



23

If there are any disputes about the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s responses, the parties
must submit a jointly-prepared chart by noon on May 10, 2018. The chart must

24

contain columns for RFA, response, Defendant’s position, proposed compromises,

25

and a blank column for the Court’s order. The chart must be filed on ECF and

26
27
28

1

The Court has received Plaintiff’s responses to the Second Set of RFAs, which were served on
May 7, 2018 and submitted by Defendants to the Court this morning. Despite Plaintiff’s service
of responses, the parties are to proceed as set forth in this Order.

1

submitted in Word format to [e-mail]. The Court will inform the

2

parties if a hearing is required; if so, it will be held telephonically at 3:00 p.m. on

3

May 10, 2018.

4

In preparing Defendants’ revised set of RFAs and Plaintiff’s responses, the parties are

5

directed to consider the proper function of RFAs, as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

6

36, as well as the Court’s previous rulings on the parties’ RFA disputes.

7
8

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2018

9
10
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2