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

Filing 417

ORDER ON 410 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO TAKE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 6/21/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2018)

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 v. BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Case No. 16-cv-01702-BLF (SVK) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO TAKE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS Re: Dkt. No. 410 The cutoff for completion of depositions in this case is June 29, 2018. ECF 268. On 13 June 15, 2018, two weeks before the cutoff, Plaintiff filed a request to increase the number of 14 Plaintiff’s permitted depositions from 10 to 25. ECF 410. Defendants did not cooperate with 15 Plaintiff in preparation of a joint statement on this discovery dispute, but the Court gave 16 Defendants an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s request. ECF 411, 412. The Court then 17 permitted Plaintiff to file a reply. ECF 413, 414. Having considered the submissions of the 18 parties, the record in this case, and the relevant law, the Court ORDERS as follows: 19 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request to take additional depositions is untimely. 20 Plaintiff has known about all of the 15 proposed “new” deponents since at least April 28, 2018, 21 when Defendants served their Supplemental Initial Disclosures. Plaintiff has known about most of 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the witnesses for much longer, since they submitted declarations months earlier in the case. Plaintiff attempts to explain that it did not raise the issue earlier because Defendants had refused to schedule any depositions until after the ESI production was complete (which occurred on May 18, 2018) and because Plaintiff believed that Defendants would agree to additional depositions in light of the Court’s March 20, 2018 order, which granted in part Defendants’ request to take additional depositions. Defendants also argue that they will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is permitted to schedule 1 additional depositions at this late date, given that the parties have already scheduled over a dozen 2 depositions during the second half of June, which has required double- and triple-tracking the 3 deposition schedule and leaves Defendants insufficient time to prepare for and defend the 4 additional depositions Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff argues that Defendants would not have been 5 prejudiced had they met and conferred when Plaintiff first raised the issue. Also, in its reply, 6 Plaintiff for the first time acknowledges that to schedule additional depositions at this time would 7 require a two-week extension of the deadline to complete depositions. This acknowledgment 8 reinforces Defendants’ argument that the requested additional depositions cannot be completed on 9 the current schedule, and Plaintiff should have addressed this problem directly in its request for 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 additional depositions. As a compromise, Defendants offer to make three witnesses on Plaintiff’s list (Mr. Das, Ms. Welch, and Mr. Zakin) available for half-day depositions. ECF 412 at 5. Plaintiff replies that any compromise should include, at a minimum, four additional witnesses (Mr. Daya, Mr. Zampa, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Talbot). The Court finds Defendants’ arguments concerning untimeliness and prejudice well-taken. The Court is also concerned about gamesmanship between the parties in negotiating to complete discovery in an efficient timely manner. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request in a limited fashion as follows: Plaintiff may have five (5) additional business days, until and including July 18 9, 2018, to take four (4) additional depositions from the seven deponents identified by both sides 19 in compromise. Each deposition is limited to 3.5 hours. All other deadlines in the case, including 20 expert disclosure on July 6, 2018, remain in place. 21 SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: June 21, 2018 23 24 25 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 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?