Filed: Apr. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Re: Dkt. No. 275 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are Defendants' Statement Regarding Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants' First Set of Requests for Admission (ECF 275) and Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement (ECF 288). Defendants argue that Plaintiff's responses to a number of Requests for Admissions ("RFAs") are deficient. ECF 275 at 2-4. Plaintiff resp
Summary: ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Re: Dkt. No. 275 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are Defendants' Statement Regarding Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants' First Set of Requests for Admission (ECF 275) and Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement (ECF 288). Defendants argue that Plaintiff's responses to a number of Requests for Admissions ("RFAs") are deficient. ECF 275 at 2-4. Plaintiff respo..
More
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 275
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are Defendants' Statement Regarding Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants' First Set of Requests for Admission (ECF 275) and Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement (ECF 288). Defendants argue that Plaintiff's responses to a number of Requests for Admissions ("RFAs") are deficient. ECF 275 at 2-4. Plaintiff responds that it has agreed to supplement its responses to many of those RFAs by April 20, 2018, but that it will not provide a supplemental response to RFA Nos. 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 44, 75, 96-100, 122, 132-135, 142, and 163 (the "Disputed RFAs"). ECF 288 at 1.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court ORDERS as follows with respect to the Disputed RFAs:
RFA Order
19 Plaintiff's objection as to vague and ambiguous is overruled.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA, in line with Court's direction in re RFA 20.
20 Plaintiff's response is an admission: Plaintiff does business as
Newmark, and Plaintiff has conducted the specified activity in
its business. No further response required.
22 Plaintiff's response is an admission: Plaintiff does business as
Newmark, and Plaintiff has conducted the specified activity in
its business. No further response required.
24 Plaintiff's response is an admission: Plaintiff does business as
Newmark, and Plaintiff has conducted the specified activity in
its business. No further response required.
25 Plaintiff's response is an admission: Plaintiff does business as
Newmark, and Plaintiff has conducted the specified activity in
its business. No further response required.
44 Plaintiff's response is a denial: Defendant was not known as
"Newmark" in the commercial real estate industry in
connection with certain, specified commercial real estate
services. No further response required.
75 Defendants' request for a supplemental response is denied.
96 Plaintiff's objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
97 Plaintiff's objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
98 Plaintiff's objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
99 Plaintiff's objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
100 Plaintiff's objections overruled, without prejudice to Plaintiff
seeking to exclude at trial.
Plaintiff must supplement its response to admit or deny this
RFA.
122 Plaintiff's response is a denial: Defendant did not use
"Newmark" before Plaintiff used "Newmark" in connection
with certain, specified commercial real estate services. No
further response is required.
132 Plaintiff's objections sustained.
133 Plaintiff's objections sustained.
134 Plaintiff's objections sustained.
135 Plaintiff's objections sustained.
142 Plaintiff's response is a denial: Defendant did not provide
certain, specified commercial real estate services before 2010.
No further response is required.
163 Plaintiff's objections sustained.
Where the Court has ordered Plaintiff to supplement its responses to the Disputed RFAs, those supplemental responses are due no later than April 25, 2018.
The Court will not rule at this time on those RFAs that Plaintiff has indicated it will supplement by April 20, 2018. Plaintiff should consider the guidance provided by this Order in preparing those supplemental responses, and the parties must continue their rigorous meet and confer efforts. Should any issues remain with respect to those supplemental responses, the parties must file a joint discovery letter brief that sets forth in a chart the disputed RFA, Plaintiff's response, Defendant's grounds for compelling a further response, and provides a column for this Court's ruling, no later than April 27, 2018.
SO ORDERED.
