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

Filing 402

FURTHER ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL (In Re: Dkt. Nos. 361 , 368 , 370 , 372 , 376 , 379 and 382 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 5/30/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC., Plaintiff, 8 9 10 FURTHER ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL v. BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Case No.16-cv-01702-BLF (SVK) Re: Dkt. Nos. 361, 368, 370, 372, 376, 379, and 382 The Court’s May 24, 2018, Order on Motions to Compel and Setting Hearing to Address 13 the Court’s Questions (ECF 392) resolved certain of the issues raised in numerous motions to 14 compel filed recently by the parties and set a hearing to discuss the Court’s questions on other 15 issues raised in the motions. The Court held a hearing on May 29, 2018 on those questions. The 16 parties’ obligations were discussed at the hearing and are set forth in the Court record. For ease of 17 reference, the Court also provides the following written order, which supplements the rulings in 18 the Court’s May 24 order (ECF 392): 19  ESI issues: Several of the Court’s rulings in its May 24 order were subject to a 20 possible future ruling by the Court on ESI issues identified in that order. The 21 parties confirmed at the hearing that in responding to document requests, they have 22 appropriately searched both ESI and non-ESI sources and that no further order 23 from the Court is necessary on the ESI issues identified in the Court’s May 24 24 order. 25  ECF 368: The parties must meet and confer by noon on May 31, 2018 regarding 26 an appropriate time frame for Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 167 and 168, as narrowed by the 27 Court’s May 24 order. If the parties are unable to agree on a time frame, they may 28 submit a joint brief of one page or less by 5:00 p.m. on May 31, 2018. 1  ECF 372: 2 o RFP Nos. 120 and 121: Defendants must conduct a search for any 3 documents that reflect Defendants’ plans to grow or expand their 4 commercial real estate mortgage brokerage services and/or commercial real 5 estate mortgage banking services (even if those plans were not 6 memorialized in formal business plans) by making inquiries of the relevant 7 company, division, or department leaders responsible for growth or 8 expansion of those business areas during the relevant time period. By June 9 8, 2018, Defendants must produce all responsive documents or, if no responsive documents are located, must so advise Plaintiff. 10 o RFP No. 134: By noon on May 31, 2018, Plaintiff must identify to United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Defendants the 91 transactions for which Plaintiff believes it has received 13 no financing documents. Defendants must conduct a further search for 14 closing statements, marketing materials, and transactional documents 15 regarding those transactions. By June 8, 2018, Defendants must produce 16 all such documents or, if no such documents are located, must so advise 17 Plaintiff. 18  ECF 376: Based on Defendants’ explanation at the hearing, Plaintiff’s motion to 19 compel the production of additional financial documents, as identified in ECF 376, 20 is DENIED. 21  ECF 379: The Court’s May 24 order is modified as follows: By noon on May 31, 22 2018, Plaintiff must provide Defendants with the Bates numbers of the emails 23 mentioned at the hearing concerning Defendants’ future plans to use the Newmark 24 mark in connection with Berkeley Point and/or Regency. By June 8, 2018, 25 Defendants must search for and produce all documents regarding the current or 26 planned use of the “Newmark” mark in connection with the businesses offered by 27 Berkeley Point and/or Regency. 28  ECF 382: Plaintiff must serve the revised RFAs by noon on May 31, 2018. 2 1 Defendants must serve responses by June 8, 2018. Any issues with regard to 2 Defendants’ responses to the revised RFAs must be raised in accordance with the 3 undersigned’s joint letter brief procedure by June 18, 2018. 4 5  ECF 361: o Interrogatory No. 8: Plaintiff must supplement its response to provide the 6 factual basis for its claim of trademark infringement by June 8, 2018. To 7 the extent Plaintiff responds by specifying other filings or documents, 8 Plaintiff must specify prior filings by ECF number and page number, and 9 must specify documents by (i) identifying the relevant category of documents and (ii) providing at least one example from each category by 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Bates number. Plaintiff is not required to identify by Bates numbers “all 12 documents” in support of its claims. 13 o Interrogatory No. 9: Plaintiff must supplement its response by June 8, 14 2018 to specify all correspondence referred to in its response by Bates 15 number. 16 17 SO ORDERED. Dated: May 30, 2018 18 19 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 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?