Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., 16-cv-01702-BLF (SVK). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180511891
Visitors: 10
Filed: May 09, 2018
Latest Update: May 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON JOINT STATEMENT RE SUBPOENAS TO NON-PARTIES CHRIS CARAS AND PARACORE, LLC Re: Dkt. No. 345 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . In accordance with the Court's May 7, 2018 Order on Joint Statement re Defendants' Motion for Production of Third Party ESI (ECF 342), third parties Chris Caras and ParaCore LLC on the one hand, and Defendants on the other hand, submitted a chart setting forth the disputed categories of documents sought in Defendants' subpoenas to Mr. Caras and ParaCore
Summary: ORDER ON JOINT STATEMENT RE SUBPOENAS TO NON-PARTIES CHRIS CARAS AND PARACORE, LLC Re: Dkt. No. 345 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . In accordance with the Court's May 7, 2018 Order on Joint Statement re Defendants' Motion for Production of Third Party ESI (ECF 342), third parties Chris Caras and ParaCore LLC on the one hand, and Defendants on the other hand, submitted a chart setting forth the disputed categories of documents sought in Defendants' subpoenas to Mr. Caras and ParaCore (..
More
ORDER ON JOINT STATEMENT RE SUBPOENAS TO NON-PARTIES CHRIS CARAS AND PARACORE, LLC
Re: Dkt. No. 345
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
In accordance with the Court's May 7, 2018 Order on Joint Statement re Defendants' Motion for Production of Third Party ESI (ECF 342), third parties Chris Caras and ParaCore LLC on the one hand, and Defendants on the other hand, submitted a chart setting forth the disputed categories of documents sought in Defendants' subpoenas to Mr. Caras and ParaCore (ECF 345). The Court ORDERS as follows with respect to these subpoenas:
I. Subpoena to Chris Caras
Category of Mr. Caras's Defendants' Proposed Order
Information Sought Objection Position Compromises
1. All Mr. Caras's Mr. Caras's Defendants' Mr. Caras shall
COMMUNICATIONS declaration, declaration is offer: produce all
with NRC or its which spans only not, as he Defendants offer documents,
counsel (including the five paragraphs claims, limited to narrow to all including
law firm Sheppard of substantive to discussing his communications emails from any
Mullin). testimony, was experiences with NRC or its account,
directed toward while at N&Co. counsel reflecting
the limited topic (See Dkt. 202-2 regarding communications
of his experience at ¶ 4 ("To this Defendants or between Mr.
in 2002-2005 day, I think of this litigation Caras and NRC
while employed Newmark (including or its counsel
at Defendant Knight Frank as providing regarding
Newmark & a real estate testimony or any Defendants or
Company Real transactional assistance in this the subject
Estate, Inc. (Dkt. brokerage firm, litigation, such litigation from
202-2, ¶¶ 4-8.) and not a firm as his the period
He also uses a that arranges or declaration). January 1,
single sentence structures 2017-present.
to express his financing for Mr. Caras's
personal commercial proposed With regards to
perception of properties."); ¶ 5 compromise is a Mr. Caras's
Newmark Knight (I did not think ploy to hide work email
Frank's business of Mr. Kolsky as communications address at
today. (Id., ¶ 4.) a debt or equity with Plaintiff CBRE, if Mr.
This testimony financing itself, despite the Caras provides
does not entitle professional, nor fact that an affidavit
Defendants to do I think of Plaintiffs stating
every single him as one principals unequivocally
email he ever now."); ¶ 6 solicited the that he did not
exchanged with (opining that very testimony communicate
Plaintiff or any certain language Mr. Caras with NRC or its
of its lawyers for "does not submitted via counsel through
all time, from describe debt declaration, and that email
any email and equity Defendants account, his
address he has financing") believe Mr. obligation to
ever used. (emphasis Caras search that
added).) communicated account for
Moreover, with Plaintiffs responsive
obtaining emails Importantly, Mr. principals using documents shall
from Mr. Caras Caras must his CBRE email be relieved.
beyond his produce emails address.
personal email from his work Documents that
address (such as email address at Though Mr. either a party or
from his work CBRE (in Caras complains third party
email address at addition to about the timing claim are
CBRE) would be personal email of this offer, privileged are to
disproportionate. accounts), as counsel agreed be reflected in a
The testimony in such emails are to exchange privilege log.
Mr. Caras's in his possession their positions at
emails are his or control. 9:00 a.m. this Production to be
own personal Notably, Mr. morning. completed by
testimony, not Caras has Moreover, Mr. May 18, 2018.
those of his already Caras's prior
employer CBRE. produced some position was an
At no point does of his CBRE absolute refusal
he use the emails (in to produce any
collective "we" particular, ESI regardless
or "us" to imply communications of any
that his opinions with Sheppard compromise
are shared by Mullin), thereby Defendants
those of his demonstrating would offer.
employer CBRE. that relevant
emails exist and Mr. Caras's
Importantly, the waiving any position:
emails of Mr. objection to Defendants'
Caras's CBRE producing such "offer" above
email account are emails. It would was made for the
the property of be unfair for Mr. first time at 9
CBRE, not Mr. Caras to email a.m. the morning
Caras, and not Plaintiff or its this chart was
within his counsel about due (and up until
"possession, Defendants or this moment
custody, or this litigation they have never
control." The through his work compromised
emails Mr. Caras email and then one iota). It is
produced from claim he should still too broad
his CBRE not have to because it seeks
account were produce emails emails from Mr.
those exchanged from that Caras's CBRE
with Sheppard account. For email address
Mullin, and example, to the (which is not his
therefore within extent Plaintiffs property) and is
Sheppard principals unbounded by
Mullin's files. exchanged time. If
Mr. Caras emails with Mr. Defendants
expressly (in Caras through wanted CBRE
writing) his work account emails, they
produced these and told Mr. could have
documents Caras what to issued a
without any say in his subpoena to
waiver of any declaration, CBRE (as they
rights Defendants are did with another
whatsoever. entitled to those third party Greg
highly relevant Michaud and his
Notably, the emails. employer Voya
subpoena was Investment
directed to Mr. Mr. Caras also Management),
Caras as an cites no but they elected
individual, not to authority for the not to.
him as a proposition that
representative of emails to/from Mr. Caras has
his employer his work email already
CBRE, and Mr. address are the produced all
Caras has treated sole property of responsive
it accordingly. his employer non-privileged
To order emails CBRE and emails with the
from beyond Mr. cannot be Sheppard Mullin
Caras's personal obtained through law firm, and
email account a validly issued respectfully
would exceed the subpoena to Mr. submits this is
scope of the Caras. Mr. the proper
subpoena. Caras should not compromise for
be permitted to this document
In earlier meet hide relevant request.
and confers, emails simply
Defendants because he used
speculated that his work email
the emails would account.
show bias, but
this is completely Moreover, Mr.
disproportionate Caras has not
and a violation of satisfied his
Rule 45(d)(1), burden of
which mandates proving undue
a district court to burden or
prevent a party expense.
from using a Specifically, it
subpoena to appears that Mr.
impose undue Caras has not
burden on a third searched for
party. If responsive
Defendants want documents and
to show that, thus it is
contrary to Mr. possible that
Caras's only a minimal
testimony, their number of
Southern responsive
California office documents exist.
performed debt When
and equity Defendants'
financing in counsel asked
2002-2005, they for an
should proffer approximation
evidence of the of the volume of
debt and equity responsive
financing documents,
transactions they opposing
actually counsel either
performed during would not or
that period. could not
Instead, they try provide one.
to skirt around
this work by To obviate
using Rule 45 to Plaintiffs
harass Mr. Caras. objection that
Defendants seek
all emails
exchanged with
Plaintiff and its
lawyers,
Defendants have
offered to
narrow this
request to
communications
with Plaintiff or
its lawyers
relating to
Defendants or
this litigation.
2. All See Mr. Caras's Defendants Defendants' The request is
DOCUMENTS objection as to incorporate their offer: overbroad and
relating to Request No. 1 position as set Defendants offer is therefore
COMMUNICATIONS above. forth for request to narrow to all denied, without
with NRC or its no. 1 above. communications prejudice to
counsel, including Defendants have with NRC or its Defendants
typed or hand-written never The documents counsel questioning Mr.
notes and any proffered—even sought, regarding Caras as to the
documents concerning here—any particularly in Defendants or existence and
transactions on which satisfactory light of this litigation nature of
YOU have worked explanation for Defendants' (including business
with NRC. how "any offer to providing relationships
documents compromise, are testimony or any between Mr.
concerning" Mr. relevant to assistance in this Caras and NRC.
Caras's undermine the litigation, such
transactions with assertions in Mr. as his
Plaintiff would Caras's declaration).
have any declaration,
relevance to the show bias, and As to documents
claims and potentially relating to
defenses in the reflect that the transactions that
case. Such ESI content of his Mr. Caras has
certainly has declaration was worked on with
absolutely no influenced by NRC,
relationship Plaintiff or its Defendants
whatsoever to counsel. would limit it to
Mr. Caras's the past 3 years.
testimony that Plaintiff should
Defendant did indicate whether
not perform debt that limitation
and equity would generate
financing more than 10
services in total
2002-2005 (13 years transactions;
ago). Defendants
Defendants' believe the total
demand for all will be lower.
documents
"concerning" Mr. Caras's
such transactions position:
is overbroad and Defendants'
unduly "offer" above
burdensome. was made for the
first time at 9
Defendants' offer a.m. the morning
to limit such this chart was
documents to the due (and up until
last 3 years does this moment
not make such they have never
documents any compromised
more relevant. In one iota). It is
fact, that means a still too broad
full decade because it seeks
separates the emails from Mr.
subject of Mr. Caras's CBRE
Caras's email address
testimony from (which is not his
the documents property) and is
Defendants seek, unbounded by
further time as to ESI
emphasizing the communications.
complete lack of If Defendants
relevance. wanted CBRE
emails, they
could have
issued a
subpoena to
CBRE (as they
did with another
third party Greg
Michaud and his
employer Voya
Investment
Management),
but they elected
not to.
The request for
all documents
"concerning"
Mr. Caras's
transactions with
Defendants is
facially
improper and
should be denied
in its entirety.
Mr. Caras has
already
produced all
responsive
non-privileged
emails with the
Sheppard Mullin
law firm, as well
as all
documents
attached
thereto, and
respectfully
submits this is
the proper
compromise for
this document
request.
3. All Mr. Caras has Defendants Mr. Caras's The request is
DOCUMENTS already produced incorporate their position: A proper and it
relating to the all documents position as set compromise is appears that Mr.
Declaration of Chris responsive to this forth for request not applicable, Caras has
Caras that YOU request, and is no. 1 above. as Mr. Caras has complied with
executed under penalty not withholding already it. No further
of perjury on February any responsive Such documents produced all order from the
9, 2018, including documents on the are highly documents Court.
draft declarations basis of any relevant as Mr. responsive to
and any DOCUMENTS objections. Caras put them this request, and
that YOU reviewed, at issue given is not
considered, or the statements withholding any
consulted in preparing made in his responsive
or revising the declaration. documents on
declaration, including the basis of any
without limitation any Although Mr. objections.
internal Caras claims he
communications at has produced all Mr. Caras has
CBRE relating to the responsive already
Declaration. documents, it is conducted a
Defendants' reasonable and
understanding diligent search,
that Mr. Caras and there is
has not produced nothing for the
anything from Court to further
his own files but order.
that Sheppard Defendants'
Mullin instead attempt to
produced its distinguish
emails with Mr. between
Caras on his Sheppard Mullin
behalf. Further, emails obtained
given that Mr. from Sheppard
Caras only Mullin's files
produced 37 and Mr. Caras's
documents to own files is
date (almost illogical and a
exclusively ruse—they are
emails with the same
Sheppard Mullin documents
and draft regardless of
declarations), whose "files"
Defendants they were
believe he likely
is in possession obtained from.
of additional
documents
"relating to" his
declaration and
the assertions
therein.
Defendants thus
ask the Court to
order Mr. Caras
to conduct a
reasonable and
diligent search
for any ESI
relating to the
assertions in his
declaration.
5. DOCUMENTS See Mr. Caras's Defendants Defendants' The request is
sufficient to show objection as to incorporate their offer: overbroad and
every entity to which Request No. 1 position as set Defendants offer is therefore
YOU have referred a above. forth for request to narrow the denied, without
client for debt or no. 1 above. timeframe of prejudice to
equity financing This request is responsive Defendants
services. extremely vague The requested documents to questioning Mr.
and overbroad, documents are three (3) years, Caras as to who
and unduly relevant to show from May 2015 Mr. Caras
burdensome. the companies to May 2018, considers
The request is that Mr. Caras and ask that Mr. competitors to
not bounded by considers as Caras provide a Plaintiff and as
time in any way, competitors to summary list of to the volume of
even though Mr. Plaintiff (i.e., such referrals, referrals
Caras has been in companies redacted to keep between Mr.
the commercial which Mr. Caras the particular Caras and
real estate believes provide deals Plaintiff
industry for debt and equity confidential.
decades. Nor financing
does it specify services), and Mr. Caras'
what would assess the assertion below
count as a volume of that "he has
"referral," or referrals that Mr. already
how Mr. Caras Caras—who has compromised by
would identify a side business producing
any such investment with documents
referrals over his several of responsive to
entire career. A Plaintiff's other requests
referral can take principals— (including those
many forms, sends to not identified in
from a simple Plaintiff. this chart)" is
introduction to false. The only
something more This request is request not set
involved. not "overbroad forth in this
and unduly chart sought Mr.
Defendants say burdensome" as Caras's resume,
the requested it seeks and in response
documents would documents Mr. Caras
show who "Mr. "sufficient to produced his
Caras considers show" and has publicly
as competitors to been narrowed available
Plaintiff." First, to a three-year professional
Defendants never period. profile.
bother to explain
how any logical Mr. Caras's
inference can be position:
made from Defendants'
"referrals" to "offer" above
"competitors." was made for the
Second, first time at 9
obtaining all of a.m. the morning
Mr. Caras's this chart was
referral due (and up until
information this moment
would be a have never
wholly compromised
disproportionate one iota). It is
method to still overbroad.
discover Defendants say
Plaintiffs that the request
competitors. It is is relevant to
Defendant's assess the
competitors that volume of
matter in this referrals Mr.
case, because— Caras sends to
as Plaintiff has Plaintiff. Yet
asserted— Defendants are
Defendant never not seeking
meaningfully "volume"
competed with (which is just a
debt and equity number), nor are
financing firms they limiting
until recently, their request for
and certainly not referrals solely
with mortgage to Plaintiff.
banking firms. Importantly,
their "offer"
above is for a
"summary list"
(i.e., for Mr.
Caras to prepare
this from
scratch), which
is not ESI, and
therefore not the
proper subject of
this motion.
Mr. Caras
submits that he
has already
compromised by
producing
documents
responsive to
other requests
(including those
not identified in
this chart). This
document
request is
improper for the
reasons
articulated and
Mr. Caras
should not be
forced to incur
further undue
burden to
respond.
6. All Defendants are Defendants Mr. Caras's The request is
COMMUNICATIONS demanding ESI incorporate their position: overbroad in
with N&CO. from Mr. Caras position as set Defendants even light of Mr.
employees or agents that, by forth for request now are Caras's
since you left the definition should no. 1 above. unwilling to departure from
company. be in the compromise N&Co in 2005
possession, The requested whatsoever on and is therefore
custody, or documents are this request, and denied, without
control of relevant to test are expressly prejudice to
Defendants. the veracity of unwilling to Defendants
They cannot shift Mr. Caras's limit this by any questioning Mr.
this burden onto statements in his date range. They Caras as his
Mr. Caras to declaration still try to shirk awareness or
avoid this burden regarding his the burden of lack thereof of
themselves. The lack of collecting colleagues at
Court must awareness of responsive N&Co who
protect Mr. Caras colleagues at documents provided debt
from this undue N&Co. who themselves, and and equity
and unfair provided debt impermissibly services.
burden. See Rule and equity shift that burden
45(d)(1) ("A services. (Dkt. onto Mr. Caras.
party or attorney 202-2 at ¶¶ 4-8.)
responsible for Defendants do Mr. Caras
issuing and not anticipate a submits that he
serving a large volume of has already
subpoena must responsive compromised by
take reasonable documents and producing
steps to avoid are unable to documents
imposing undue limit by date responsive to
burden or given the broad other requests
expense on a nature of Mr. (including those
person subject to Caras's not identified in
the subpoena. assertions. this chart). This
The court for the document
district where request is
compliance is improper for the
required must reasons
enforce this duty articulated and
and impose an Mr. Caras
appropriate should not be
sanction—which forced to incur
may include lost further undue
earnings and burden to
reasonable
attorney's fees— respond.
on a party or
attorney who Defendants'
fails to comply.") response to Mr.
(emphasis Caras's position:
added). Mr. Caras'
assertion below
If the Court is that "he has
inclined to already
entertain this compromised by
request, it should producing
not allow documents
Defendants to responsive to
obtain emails other requests
from Mr. Caras (including those
beyond his not identified in
personal email this chart)" is
address (such as false. The only
from his work request not set
email address at forth in this
CBRE). The chart sought Mr.
testimony in Mr. Caras's resume,
Caras's emails and in response
are his own Mr. Caras
personal produced his
testimony, not publicly
those of his available
employer CBRE. professional
At no point does profile.
he use the
collective "we" Moreover, Mr.
or "us" to imply Caras's burden
that his opinions argument is
are shared by completely
those of his unsubstantiated
employer CBRE. and amounts to
nothing more
Importantly, the than speculation
emails of Mr. designed to
Caras's CBRE evade the
email account are production of
the property of relevant
CBRE, not Mr. documents.
Caras, and not
within his
"possession,
custody, or
control." The
emails Mr. Caras
produced from
his CBRE
account were
those exchanged
with Sheppard
Mullin, and
therefore within
Sheppard
Mullin's files.
Mr. Caras
expressly (in
writing)
produced these
documents
without any
waiver of any
rights
whatsoever.
Notably, the
subpoena was
directed to Mr.
Caras as an
individual, not to
him as a
representative of
his employer
CBRE, and Mr.
Caras has treated
it accordingly.
To order emails
from beyond Mr.
Caras's
individual,
personal email
account would
exceed the scope
of the subpoena.
7. All This request is Defendants Mr. Caras's The request is
COMMUNICATIONS impermissibly incorporate their position: overbroad as to
in YOUR possession, vague, as the position as set Defendants even communications
custody, or control request is forth for request now are and vague and
related to your completely nos. 1 and 6 unwilling to ambiguous as to
previous employment unclear as to the above. compromise "related to . . .
with N&Co., including scope of what it whatsoever on employment."
without limitation means to be The requested this request.
work papers and "related" to Mr. documents are They still try to Mr. Caras shall
marketing materials. Caras's previous important to test shirk the burden produce any
employment with the veracity of of collecting marketing
Defendant. Nor the assertions responsive materials
have Defendants Mr. Caras made documents relating to
ever provided a in his themselves, and N&Co. that he
satisfactory declaration, impermissibly has in his
explanation as to including his shift that burden possession.
how all such supposed lack of onto Mr. Caras.
responsive ESI is awareness of the Production to be
relevant to the nature of the Mr. Caras complete by
claims and services offered submits that he May 18, 2018.
defenses in this by his has already
case. colleagues. compromised by
Moreover, Mr. producing
Further, Caras has made documents
Defendants seek no effort to responsive to
ESI from Mr. actually other requests
Caras that is in demonstrate that (including those
the possession, he has a not identified in
custody, or significant this chart and
control of volume of nonpublic drafts
Defendants. responsive of his
They cannot shift documents so professional
this burden onto that there is any bio). This
Mr. Caras to burden document
avoid this burden associated with request is
themselves. The responding. facially
Court must improper and
protect Mr. Caras overbroad for
from this undue the reasons
burden. See Rule articulated and
45(d)(1) ("A Mr. Caras
party or attorney should not be
responsible for forced to incur
issuing and further undue
serving a burden to
subpoena must respond.
take reasonable
steps to avoid Defendants'
imposing undue response to Mr.
burden or Caras's position:
expense on a Mr. Caras'
person subject to assertion below
the subpoena. that "he has
The court for the already
district where compromised by
compliance is producing
required must documents
enforce this duty responsive to
and impose an other requests
appropriate (including those
sanction—which not identified in
may include lost this chart)" is
earnings and false. The only
reasonable request not set
attorney's fees— forth in this
on a party or chart sought Mr.
attorney who Caras's resume,
fails to comply.") and in response
(emphasis Mr. Caras
added). produced his
publicly
If the Court is available
inclined to professional
entertain this profile.
request, it should
not allow Moreover, Mr.
Defendants to Caras's burden
obtain emails argument is
from Mr. Caras completely
beyond his unsubstantiated
personal email and amounts to
address (such as nothing more
from his work than speculation
email address at designed to
CBRE). The evade the
testimony in Mr. production of
Caras's emails relevant
are his own documents.
personal
testimony, not
those of his
employer CBRE.
At no point does
he use the
collective "we"
or "us" to imply
that his opinions
are shared by
those of his
employer CBRE.
Importantly, the
emails of Mr.
Caras's CBRE
email account are
the property of
CBRE, not Mr.
Caras, and not
within his
"possession,
custody, or
control." The
emails Mr. Caras
produced from
his CBRE
account were
those exchanged
with Sheppard
Mullin, and
therefore within
Sheppard
Mullin's files.
Mr. Caras
expressly (in
writing)
produced these
documents
without any
waiver of any
rights
whatsoever.
Notably, the
subpoena was
directed to Mr.
Caras as an
individual, not to
him as a
representative of
his employer
CBRE, and Mr.
Caras has treated
it accordingly.
To order emails
from beyond Mr.
Caras's
individual,
personal email
account would
exceed the scope
of the subpoena,
and the request.
8. ALL This request is Defendants Mr. Caras's Request is
DOCUMENTS completely incorporate their position: vague,
reflecting your harassing and position as set Defendants even ambiguous and
statement to any improper. It forth for request now are overbroad and
person that any demands that Mr. nos. 1 and 6 unwilling to as such is
materials you Caras make a above. compromise denied without
distributed while at legal conclusion, whatsoever on prejudice to
N&Co. were false i.e., identify Mr. Caras this request. Defendants
and/or misleading. documents that asserts in his Their position in questioning Mr.
are "false and/or declaration: the previous Caras as to
misleading," "Although column, which whether he ever
which is [Defendants] apparently told anyone that
inappropriate for advertised as revises what N&Co's
a document providing debt they seek, was marketing
request. and equity expressed to Mr. materials were
Document financing, we Caras for the misleading or
requests should did not actually first time at 9 false.
ask for factual provide it." a.m. the morning
matter, not (Dkt. 202-2 at ¶ this chart was
require a third 8.) Given his due. It does not
party to make a assertion, save
judgment call as Defendants seek Defendants'
to what communications, position,
documents are if any, in which because it is still
"false and/or Mr. Caras told harassing,
misleading." third parties that improper, vague,
N&Co.'s and requires Mr.
marketing Caras to make a
materials were legal conclusion.
misleading or
false because Mr. Caras
they contained a submits that this
reference to document
mortgage request is
finance/debt foundationally
and equity improper and
finance services. should be denied
Defendants do in its entirety.
not believe Mr. Mr. Caras
Caras has any should not be
such documents, required to make
but seek legal
confirmation one conclusions and
way or the other. identify ESI
relating to
documents that
are purportedly
"false and/or
misleading."
Defendants'
response to Mr.
Caras's position:
The request is
proper as
framed.
9. DOCUMENTS Mr. Caras has Given Mr. N/A N/A
sufficient to identify confirmed that he Caras'
any transactions or produced a representation,
potential transactions responsive there is no
on which you are document outstanding
currently working with sufficient to issue for the
NRC. identify the Court to resolve
information on this request.
sought by the
request, which is
Bates labeled as
CARAS0000153.
II. Subpoena to ParaCore, LLC
Category of Information ParaCore's Defendants' Proposed Order
Sought Objection Position Compromises
1. All DOCUMENTS, ParaCore has Given counsel's N/A N/A
including YOUR conducted a representation,
COMMUNICATIONS reasonable and Defendants
with NRC (including but diligent expect a
not limited to Adam investigation complete
Parker), relating to Google will produce all production of
Analytics, including log responsive and responsive
files, for any website non-privileged documents by
owned by NRC (e.g. documents by May 11, 2018.
newmarkrealtycapital.com) May 11, 2018,
for which YOU provided and will not
any web solution services. withhold
documents
based on any of
its objections
other than
privilege.
2. All DOCUMENTS, Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. N/A
including YOUR
COMMUNICATIONS
with NRC, relating to
search engine optimization
services that you
performed for or
recommend to NRC.
3. All DOCUMENTS, Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. N/A
including YOUR
COMMUNICATIONS
with NRC, in YOUR
possession, custody, or
control in which YOU or
NRC referred to N&Co.'s
corporate names,
trademarks, or websites.
4. All DOCUMENTS, Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. N/A
including YOUR
COMMUNICATIONS
with NRC, relating to
Google AdWords lead
generation services that
you provided to or for
NRC.
5. All DOCUMENTS, Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. N/A
including YOUR
COMMUNICATIONS
with NRC, relating to the
confusion between NRC
and N&Co. or the lawsuit
filed by NRC against
N&Co.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
