Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC., Case No. 16-cv-01702-BLF (SVK) Plaintiff, FURTHER ORDER REGARDING v. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST
BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al., SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 313
On April 30, 2018, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to provide promised supplemental responses to certain of Defendants’ requests for admissions (“RFAs”) by 9:00 a.m. on May 2, 2018, and requesting that the parties notify the Court if disputes concerning those supplemental responses required a hearing. ECF 324. After receiving Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Responses, Defendants requested a hearing, and the Court held a telephonic hearing on the afternoon of May 2, 2018.
After considering the parties’ arguments as well as the legal standards as discussed in the Court’s April 30 order, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff must supplement its RFA responses as described below by 5:00 p.m. on May 3, 2018 : RFA No. Order Admissions or denials “subject to” Plaintiff may include a general objection
objections in the preamble of its supplemental responses that its supplemental responses are subject to and without waiver of Plaintiff’s objections, identifying the specific document where those objections can be found. Plaintiff must strike similar language from the answers to individual RFAs. *2 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit
Admit that NRC has no evidence that it the matter as to the time period prior to has lost any clients due to January 1, 2016 and deny as to January DEFENDANTS' use of the name 1, 2016 to present. Newmark & Company Real Estate. 82 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit Admit that NRC has no evidence that it the matter as to the time period prior to has lost any lending opportunities due to January 1, 2016 and deny as to January DEFENDANTS' use of the name 1, 2016 to present. Newmark & Company Real Estate. 83 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit Admit that NRC has no evidence that it the matter as to the time period prior to has lost any sales revenue due to January 1, 2016 and deny as to January DEFENDANTS' use of the name 1, 2016 to present. Newmark & Company Real Estate. 84 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit Admit that NRC has no evidence that it the matter as to the time period prior to has lost any profits due to January 1, 2016 and deny as to January DEFENDANTS' use of the name 1, 2016 to present. Newmark & Company Real Estate. 85 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit Admit that NRC has no evidence of any the matter as to the time period prior to monetary damages attributable to January 1, 2016 and deny as to January DEFENDANTS" use of the name 1, 2016 to present. Newmark & Company Real Estate. 86 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit Admit that NRC has no evidence that it the matter as to “Newmark Knight has lost any clients due to Frank,” including the quotation marks, DEFENDANTS’ use of the name and strike the remainder of the response. Newmark Knight Frank. 87 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit Admit that NRC has no evidence that it the matter as to “Newmark Knight has lost any lending opportunities due to Frank,” including the quotation marks, DEFENDANTS' use of the name and strike the remainder of the response. Newmark Knight Frank. 88 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit Admit that NRC has no evidence that it the matter as to “Newmark Knight has lost any sales revenue due to Frank,” including the quotation marks, DEFENDANTS' use of the name and strike the remainder of the response. Newmark Knight Frank. 89 Plaintiff must revise its response to admit Admit that NRC has no evidence that it the matter as to “Newmark Knight has lost any profits due to Frank,” including the quotation marks, DEFENDANTS' use of the name and strike the remainder of the response. Newmark Knight Frank. *3 112 Plaintiff must revise its response to insert Admit that, since September 2017, no a period after “Los Angeles” and strike client or prospective client has contacted the remainder of the response. NRC about the sexual-harassment lawsuit filed against N&CO. in Los Angeles. 113 Defendants ordered to withdraw RFA Admit that, since October 2017, no client No. 113 as subsumed within RFA No. or prospective client has contacted NRC 112; no further response required. about the sexual-harassment lawsuit filed against N&CO. in Los Angeles and expressed the belief that N&CO. and NRC are the same company. 138 Plaintiff must revise its response to insert Admit that NRC has no evidence that a period after “Plaintiff’s trademark” and DEFENDANTS have obtained any new strike the remainder of the response. lending opportunities due to confusion regarding NRC's trademark. 144 Plaintiff must revise its response to insert Admit that NRC is unaware of any person a period after “Defendants’ website” and who has visited its website and believed strike the remainder of the response. that he or she was visiting DEFENDANTS' website. 145 Plaintiff must revise its response to insert Admit that NRC is unaware of any person a period after “Plaintiff’s website” and who has visited one of DEFENDANTS' strike the remainder of the response. websites and believed that he or she was visiting NRC’s website. 146 Plaintiff must revise its response to insert Admit that NRC has no evidence that its a period after “any such evidence” and customers or potential customers have strike the remainder of the response. signed any agreements to work with N&CO., believing that N&CO. is affiliated with or sponsored by NRC. 147 Plaintiff must revise its response to insert Admit that NRC has no evidence that its a period after “any such evidence” and customers or potential customers have strike the remainder of the response. signed any agreements to work with NRC, believing that NRC are affiliated with or sponsored by one of the
DEFENDANTS.
//// *4 Plaintiff must revise its response to insert Admit that NRC has no evidence that one a period after “any such evidence” and of its customers or potential customers strike the remainder of the response. began a financial transaction with N&CO., believing that N&CO. was affiliated with or sponsored by
NRC.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 2, 2018
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge