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

Filing 388

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 373 NON-PARTY CHRIS CARAS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/23/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 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 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE NON-PARTY CHRIS CARAS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Re: ECF 373] 12 13 14 Non-party Chris Caras filed a motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order of 15 Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen (“Order,” ECF 350). Mot., ECF 373. The Order requires Mr. 16 Caras to “produce all documents, including emails from any account, reflecting communications 17 between Mr. Caras and [Plaintiff Newmark Realty Capital, Inc.] or its counsel regarding 18 Defendants or the subject litigation from the period January 1, 2017-present.” Order 1–2. Mr. Caras 19 seeks to set aside the portion of the Order that requires him to produce his CBRE1 work emails on the 20 grounds that it is impossible for him to comply. Mot. 1–3. Mr. Caras submitted a declaration that 21 states the following. After the Order issued on May 9, 2018, Mr. Caras conducted a search of his 22 CBRE email account and found that most of his CBRE emails from the year 2017 have been archived. 23 Caras Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 373-1. CBRE informed Mr. Caras that he was not allowed to produce his work 24 emails because the emails are CBRE’s property. Id. CBRE did not restore the archived emails. Id. Here, Mr. Caras testifies that after the Order issued on May 9, 2018, his employer CBRE 25 26 affirmatively stated that Mr. Caras is not allowed to produce his emails because those are CBRE’s 27 28 1 CBRE is Mr. Caras’ employer. 1 property and CBRE did not restore the archived emails. CBRE also informed Mr. Caras that 2 CBRE will produce the emails only if it is served directly with a subpoena. Caras Decl. ¶ 2. 3 These facts constitute a change of circumstances which Judge van Keulen did not have an 4 opportunity to consider when she issued the Order. Accordingly, Mr. Caras should first request 5 Judge van Keulen to determine whether Mr. Caras’ production of emails should be limited in light 6 of the change of circumstances. For these reasons, Mr. Caras’ motion for relief from 7 nondispositive pretrial order of Judge van Keulen is DENIED without prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dated: May 23, 2018 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?