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)

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