throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 32570
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`










`
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.’s Motion to Disqualify DLA Piper LLP (US)
`
`(Docket No. 554) and DLA Piper’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Jamie B. Beaber’s
`
`Declaration in Support of Maxell’s Motion to Disqualify (Docket No. 577). For the reasons set
`
`forth below, both motions are DENIED.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Maxell filed its initial complaint in this action on March 15, 2019, alleging that Apple’s
`
`products infringe ten smartphone-related patents.1 Docket No. 1. The case has since been
`
`narrowed to six patents and, after being reset twice, is currently set for trial on March 22, 2021.
`
`Docket Nos. 593, 619, 624. Maxell filed the instant motion on October 28, 2020—at the time, less
`
`than six weeks before the previous trial date, December 6, 2020. Docket No. 554. The Court
`
`heard argument on the motion following the pretrial conference on November 12, 2020 (Docket
`
`No. 582).
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317; 6,580,999; 8,339,493; 7,116,438; 6,408,193; 10,084,991; 6,928,306; 6,329,794;
`10,212,586; and 6,430,498.
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 32571
`
`The events that form the factual background of this motion are generally undisputed, but
`
`each party’s interpretation of the events is heavily contested. Maxell and DLA Piper have each
`
`submitted declarations and documentary evidence in support of their interpretation. The factual
`
`allegations in Maxell’s motion are supported by the declaration of Jamie Beaber (Docket No. 554-
`
`1, Ex. A (“Beaber Decl.”)), counsel for Maxell from Mayer Brown. The facts alleged in DLA
`
`Piper’s response are supported by the declaration of Justin Park (Docket No. 576-2, Ex. 2 (“Park
`
`Decl.”)), the attorney whose actions are central to this motion, declarations of members of DLA
`
`Piper’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) (Docket No. 576-3, Ex. 3 (“Lindau Decl.”), Docket
`
`No. 576-4, Ex. 4 (“Deem Decl.”)), the declaration of David Hoofnagle, Senior IT Manager for
`
`DLA Piper (Docket No. 576-5, Ex. 5 (“Hoofnagle Decl.”)) and declarations of each lawyer and
`
`paralegal on DLA Piper’s Apple team adverse to Maxell (Docket No. 576-1, Ex. 1 (“Cunningham
`
`Decl.”); Docket Nos. 576-6–36, Exs. 6–36 (“Apple Team Decls.”)). The following is a timeline
`
`of relevant facts.
`
`I.
`
`Justin Park’s Time at Mayer Brown
`
`Maxell alleges that from April 2016 to January 2020, Justin Park worked on smartphone
`
`matters for Maxell as counsel at Mayer Brown and was an integral part of the Maxell litigation
`
`team. Docket No. 554 at 2. Through his work on Maxell matters, Maxell states that Mr. Park:
`
`(1) Accessed and had full access to all of Maxell’s highly confidential business,
`technical, and attorney-client privileged information and documents, (2) was on the
`internal and external e-mail distribution lists for these cases where hundreds of
`confidential e-mails both within Mayer Brown and with Maxell were exchanged,
`(3) attended meetings with Maxell related to this case including at the client’s
`headquarters in Japan, (4) attended numerous depositions relating to the Maxell
`smartphone matters, (5) has direct knowledge of Maxell’s litigation strategy (which
`includes again privileged attorney mental impressions and work product), and (6)
`saw confidential and attorney-client information, technical and strategic, related to
`these cases (and the Apple matters specifically).
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 32572
`
`Beaber Decl. ¶ 3. Mr. Park agrees that Maxell was one of his clients while at Mayer Brown. Park
`
`Decl. ¶ 3. In January 2020, Mr. Park left Mayer Brown and began working in the Washington,
`
`D.C. office of DLA Piper. Beaber Decl. ¶ 4; Park Decl. ¶ 3. At the time, DLA Piper was not
`
`engaged by Apple in this matter or in the related International Trade Commission (“ITC”) matter
`
`adverse to Maxell—Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Laptop Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`1215. Beaber Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`Six months later, that changed. On July 30, 2020, DLA Piper filed a Public Interest
`
`Statement on Apple’s behalf in the ITC matter. Id. That same day, Mr. Beaber reached out to Mr.
`
`Park via telephone to discuss DLA Piper’s management of any potential conflicts of interest
`
`involving Mr. Park. Id. ¶ 5; Park Decl. ¶ 8. Mr. Beaber’s declaration refers to this conversation
`
`as a request for “a formal response regarding whether any confidential Maxell information had
`
`been disclosed to anyone on the DLA Piper Apple litigation team adverse to Maxell and whether
`
`any efforts were undertaken to protect Maxell’s confidential information at that time.” Beaber
`
`Decl. ¶ 5. Mr. Park characterizes the conversation as an informal call between former colleagues.
`
`Park Decl. ¶ 8. According to Mr. Park, Mr. Beaber told him that “Maxell had no intention of
`
`seeking to disqualify” DLA Piper and agreed that Mr. Park should ask the firm to establish an
`
`ethical wall. Id.
`
`During their conversation, Mr. Beaber claims Mr. Park informed him that he had “had
`
`discussions with at least one DLA Piper team member working on the matters adverse to Maxell
`
`regarding the attorneys at Mayer Brown working on the Maxell smartphone matters.” Beaber
`
`Decl. ¶ 5. Mr. Park concedes that on July 28, 2020—two days prior to his conversation with Mr.
`
`Beaber—he spoke with Patrick Park, a DLA Piper attorney in Los Angeles whom he considers a
`
`personal friend. Park Decl. ¶ 6. But Mr. Park states that the “discussions” Mr. Beaber refers to
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 32573
`
`were innocuous; during “a brief portion of what was otherwise a personal conversation,” Patrick
`
`Park asked him if he knew Mr. Beaber, and Mr. Park responded that Mr. Beaber and his team
`
`“were good lawyers.” Id. Mr. Park testifies that he did not disclose any confidential client
`
`information to Patrick Park at that time or at any other time. Id.
`
`In response to his conversation with Mr. Beaber, Mr. Park emailed Mark Fowler, vice chair
`
`of his practice group at DLA Piper, regarding an ethical wall. Id. ¶ 9; Docket No. 576-13, Ex. 13
`
`(“Fowler Decl.”) ¶ 4. Mr. Fowler forwarded that email to Peter Lindau, a member of the firm’s
`
`Office of General Counsel (“OGC”). Park Decl. ¶ 9; Fowler Decl. ¶ 5; Lindau Decl. ¶ 4. Before
`
`that email, DLA Piper’s OGC was unaware of Mr. Park’s prior work for Maxell. Lindau Decl. ¶
`
`4. Mr. Lindau informed Mr. Park that he could not speak with anyone working on the ITC matter
`
`about Maxell or disclose any information about Maxell to anyone representing Apple. Park Decl.
`
`¶ 9; Lindau Decl. ¶ 4. Mr. Park states that he always knew of these ethical obligations and
`
`complied with them at all times. Park Decl. ¶ 9.
`
`On August 10, 2020, Mr. Beaber testifies that Mr. Park “responded informally” to his
`
`inquiry and said that he had contacted Mr. Fowler and OGC about implementing an ethical screen.
`
`Beaber Decl. ¶ 6. Mr. Park provided no further details regarding the ethical screen’s timing or
`
`scope. Id. Mr. Park testifies that this exchange was part of a text conversation initiated by Mr.
`
`Beaber about unrelated, personal matters, and he had let Mr. Beaber know that he “contacted
`
`Fowler and the inhouse counsel re Chinese wall so we are good [sic].” Park Decl. ¶ 10; Ex. A
`
`(text exchange between Mr. Park and Mr. Beaber dated 8/10/20). Because the conversation
`
`continued regarding personal matters without a response from Mr. Beaber regarding the ethical
`
`wall, Mr. Park assumed that no further communications were necessary on the topic. Id.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 32574
`
`On August 18, 2020, Mr. Park testifies that he received a formal ethical screen notification
`
`from OGC. Id. ¶ 11. Although Mr. Park maintains that he was well aware of his duties under the
`
`ethical rules prior to reviewing the notification, he testifies that the ethical screen mandated that
`
`he (1) have no communications with any member of the DLA Apple team related to Maxell; (2)
`
`not work on anything related to his previous work for Maxell; (3) not have access to any case files,
`
`physical or electronic, for any matter involving Apple and Maxell; and (4) not receive any
`
`information about any matter involving Apple and Maxell from any of Apple’s counsel, including
`
`any member of the DLA Apple team. Id. Mr. Lindau confirms that the ethical screen was “fully
`
`implemented” by August 18, 2020. Lindau Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`On August 28, 2020, a number of DLA Piper attorneys entered appearances in this matter.
`
`Docket Nos. 512–22, 524, 529. Because he “had not yet received a formal response” to his request
`
`to Mr. Park on July 30 regarding an ethical screen, Mr. Beaber states that he was “surprised” at
`
`DLA Piper’s appearance in this matter. Beaber Decl. ¶ 7. He then initiated the first in a series of
`
`communications between Mayer Brown and DLA Piper that began on September 11, 2020. Id.
`
`II.
`
`Communications Between Mayer Brown and DLA Piper
`
`On September 11, 2020, Mr. Beaber sent a letter to DLA Piper’s opposing counsel and
`
`OGC “stating that DLA Piper’s representation of Apple in this case raises a conflict of interest that
`
`may require disqualification and renewing my request for information regarding the protection of
`
`Maxell’s highly confidential information.” Id.; Docket No. 554-2, Ex. B (Sept. 11, 2020 email
`
`from Jamie Beaber to Sean Cunningham and Elisha King). The letter specifically asked DLA
`
`Piper to describe in detail (1) Mr. Park’s role in the case, if any; (2) any actions that DLA Piper
`
`took to notify Maxell of this potential conflict of interest and to protect Maxell’s confidential
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 32575
`
`information; and (3) the scope and parameters of any ethical screen implemented with respect to
`
`Mr. Park. Id.
`
`On September 16, 2020, DLA Piper responded that it did not believe it had a disqualifying
`
`conflict of interest in this case as Mr. Park had not disclosed any Maxell confidential information
`
`to anyone on DLA Piper’s Apple team and an ethical screen was in place. Docket No. 554-3, Ex.
`
`C (Sept. 16, 2020 email from Peter Lindau to Jamie Beaber). DLA Piper also expressed concerns
`
`that the purported issue was tactical in nature. Id. It then described the ethical screen:
`
`Justin Park has not disclosed any information regarding Maxell or any matter for
`Maxell in which he may have been involved (“the Maxell Matters”) to anyone
`representing Apple. The lawyers representing Apple in the cases cited above have
`neither sought nor received any information from Mr. Park regarding Maxell or the
`Maxell Matters.
`
`DLA Piper erected an ethical wall, and separately reiterated to Mr. Park that he is
`prohibited from disclosing any information he may have regarding Maxell or the
`Maxell Matters to anyone representing Apple. The lawyers representing Apple
`have been advised that they may not seek or attempt to access any confidential
`information regarding Maxell or the Maxell Matters. If anyone were to attempt to
`breach the wall, even inadvertently, the Office of General Counsel would be
`notified. We have not received any such notification.
`
`
`Mayer Brown responded on September 18, 2020, rejecting the contention that the concerns
`
`Id.
`
`were “tactical.” Docket No. 554-4, Ex. D (Sept. 18, 2020 email from Jamie Beaber to Peter
`
`Lindau). The response informed DLA Piper that it had not complied with ABA Model Rule
`
`1.10(a)(2)(ii), which requires prompt written notice of a firm’s compliance with Model Rule
`
`1.10(a)(2)(i) (screening of a disqualified attorney), including a description of the screening
`
`procedures employed and a statement of the firm’s compliance. Id. It also noted that Mr. Park’s
`
`“discussions” with a member of the Apple Team regarding Mayer Brown and its work on the
`
`Maxell smartphone matters raised confidentiality concerns. Id.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 32576
`
`On September 28, 2020, DLA Piper responded, stating that the firm had fully complied
`
`with its ethical obligations. Docket No. 544-5, Ex. E (Sept. 28, 2020 email from Peter Lindau to
`
`Jamie Beaber). DLA Piper stated that “Mayer Brown, and thus Maxell, were aware of the Firm’s
`
`representation of Apple in the ITC matter upon or shortly after the filing of the Public Interest
`
`Statement with the ITC on July 30, 2020.” Id. This is confirmed, DLA Piper claimed, by Mr.
`
`Beaber’s conversation with Mr. Park on July 30 regarding an ethical screen. Id. DLA Piper then
`
`described the ethical screening procedures in greater detail:
`
`The initial ethical screen relating to the ITC matter was initiated immediately after
`your July 30, 2020 call with Mr. Park, and was fully implemented on or before
`August 18, 2020. Moreover, no confidential information had been communicated
`by Mr. Park to anyone at DLA Piper, including those professionals assisting in the
`representation of Apple, before the ethical screen was erected. And no such
`information has been communicated by Mr. Park to anyone at DLA Piper since that
`time. At the time the ethical screen was initiated, the Firm had not yet been retained
`by Apple on the matter pending in the Eastern District of Texas referenced above.
`A screen for that matter was automatically initiated upon our retention by Apple
`and the opening of that matter, and notification of the screen was sent automatically
`to all members of the Apple team working on that matter—both attorneys and
`paralegals—who were not already subject to the existing ethical screen.
`
`The Firm’s attorneys and paralegals working on the Apple matters and Mr. Park
`were advised of the erection of the screen and instructed that Mr. Park could not
`work on the Matters and should be denied access to any files, electronic or physical,
`relating to the Matters. The Apple team members were also instructed to have no
`communications with Mr. Park regarding the Matters. Moreover, Mr. Park was
`instructed to have no communications with the Apple team on the Matters as well.
`And he was explicitly denied access to any files, physical or electronic, maintained
`in connection with the Matters. The Firm’s software prevents the lawyers and
`paralegals on opposite sides of a screen from accessing electronic documents.
`Further, as I previously advised, if anyone were to even attempt to breach the ethical
`screen, even inadvertently, the Firm’s Office of General Counsel would be notified.
`To date, we have received no such notification.
`
`
`Id.
`
`DLA Piper attached the sworn declaration of Sean Cunningham, one of the lead attorneys
`
`for Apple in this matter, corroborating the above description and confirming that he had spoken
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 32577
`
`with each member of the DLA Piper Apple team. Id. Each confirmed that they had no
`
`communications with Mr. Park pertaining to any prior work he performed for Maxell. Id. Mr.
`
`Park also provided a sworn declaration, summarized in the response below:
`
`Mr. Park provides further confirmation of these facts in his attached declaration.
`Mr. Park brought no confidential files or materials with him from Mayer
`Brown pertaining to Maxell. And since joining DLA Piper, Mr. Park has not
`worked on any matters involving or adverse to Maxell, including the Matters at
`issue. He also confirms that he has not worked on any matters for Apple. Most
`importantly, Mr. Park confirms that he has not disclosed any confidential
`information that he purportedly learned while representing Maxell to anyone at the
`Firm, including members of the team of lawyers and paralegals representing Apple.
`And he has never been asked by anyone at the Firm to disclose any such
`information.
`
`Id. (emphasis added). The response closed with an assurance that DLA Piper would follow up
`
`with Mr. Park and the Apple team periodically to ensure the efficacy of the ethical screen and
`
`offered to provide certifications at reasonable intervals upon Maxell’s request. Id.
`
`On September 29, 2020, Mayer Brown responded, contending that DLA Piper’s response
`
`was inadequate and that based on the firm’s representations to date, “it remains clear that DLA
`
`Piper is in violation of the ethical rules.” Docket No. 554-6, Ex. F (Sept. 29, 2020 email from
`
`Jamie Beaber to Peter Lindau). Specifically, Mayer Brown argued that: (1) DLA Piper did not
`
`provide Maxell or Mayer Brown with prompt and timely written notice as required by Model Rule
`
`1.10(a)(2)(ii) of its representation of Apple in either this matter or the ITC matter; and (2) DLA
`
`Piper did not “timely screen” Mr. Park because the ethical screen was initiated after Mr. Beaber
`
`“raised the issue” with Mr. Park. Id. Mayer Brown requested a “comprehensive response” to these
`
`points by October 1, 2020. Id.
`
`The next day, DLA Piper provided a brief response:
`
`In response to your letter of September 29, 2020, we have already provided
`declarations confirming that (1) an ethical wall was timely initiated, and (2) no
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 32578
`
`confidential or privileged information of your client was disclosed to the Apple
`team. This should satisfy any legitimate concerns your client may have had.
`
`Docket No. 554-7, Ex. G (Sept. 30, 2020 email from Peter Lindau to Jamie Beaber).
`
`Dissatisfied with DLA Piper’s response, on October 5, 2020, Mayer Brown sent another
`
`email expressing Maxell’s “serious concerns” due to DLA Piper’s “conflicting information.”
`
`Docket No. 554-8, Ex. H (Oct. 5, 2020 email from Jamie Beaber to Peter Lindau). The email
`
`requested that DLA Piper immediately provide comprehensive responses to Maxell’s concerns
`
`regarding the timeliness of the ethical screen and written notice of DLA Piper’s representation of
`
`Apple. Id.
`
`A week passed, within which DLA Piper did not respond. Mayer Brown then sent a notice
`
`requesting DLA Piper’s response or “a date and time you are available for a meet and confer on
`
`Maxell, Ltd.’s motion to disqualify.” Docket No. 554-9, Ex. I (Oct. 12, 2020 email from Jamie
`
`Beaber to Peter Lindau).
`
`III. Discovery of Maxell’s Confidential Materials
`
`On October 14, 2020, DLA Piper responded. Docket No. 554-10, Ex. J (Oct. 14, 2020
`
`email from Peter Lindau to Jamie Beaber). DLA Piper clarified that the “discussions” Mr. Park
`
`had with a member of the Apple team was merely a casual interaction in which Mr. Park
`
`acknowledged that he knows Mr. Beaber and complimented him and his team. Id.
`
`The response then stated that Mr. Park had recently created a consolidated folder of his
`
`communications with OGC regarding the ethical screen. Id. In doing so, Mr. Park searched his
`
`email for the term “Maxell.” Id. That search uncovered several email threads pertaining to Maxell.
`
`Id. DLA Piper explains that Mayer Brown “erroneously included” the emails during Mr. Park’s
`
`transfer as part of a separate transferring client’s files. Id. Until this time, DLA Piper maintains,
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 32579
`
`no one at DLA Piper, including Mr. Park, knew that he possessed the emails. Id. Mr. Park
`
`immediately forwarded the emails to OGC. Id.
`
`After the emails were discovered, DLA Piper states that its IT department conducted an
`
`investigation and concluded that none of the emails were accessed by anyone other than Mr. Park
`
`and OGC. Id. DLA Piper attached the Maxell emails to its response, stating that the “emails are
`
`now and will remain inaccessible to DLA Piper staff and lawyers, including Mr. Park, outside the
`
`Office of General Counsel.” Id.
`
`Mayer Brown responded two days later, stating that the materials Mr. Park found in his
`
`files were “highly confidential Maxell case settlement strategies and royalty rates for the Maxell
`
`smartphone patent portfolio.” Docket No. 554-11, Ex. K (Oct. 16, 2020 email from Jamie Beaber
`
`to Peter Lindau). The response argues that their belated discovery demonstrates that “[t]here was
`
`no plan or direction from DLA Piper to thoroughly search Mr. Park’s files,” calling into question
`
`the efficacy of the purported ethical wall. Id. Further, Mr. Park’s previous declaration that he
`
`“brought no confidential files or materials with him from Mayer Brown pertaining to Maxell” was
`
`now, in Maxell’s view, proven to be false. Id. In light of this new information, and in the absence
`
`of DLA Piper’s comprehensive response requested in its previous emails, Mayer Brown informed
`
`DLA Piper that Maxell would be moving to disqualify. Id. Maxell filed its motion to disqualify
`
`DLA Piper on October 28, 2020. Docket No. 554.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`I.
`
`Motions to Disqualify
`
`“As disqualification is a procedural matter not unique to patent law, regional circuit law
`
`applies.” Adaptix, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-437, 2014 WL 11730482, at *4 (citing Picker
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 869 F.2d 578, 580–81 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). In the Fifth Circuit, a
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 32580
`
`motion to disqualify is a substantive motion “affecting the rights of the parties” and is thus
`
`“determined by applying standards developed under federal law.” In re Am. Airlines, Inc., 972
`
`F.2d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Dresser Industries, 972 F.2d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1992)).
`
`While the Fifth Circuit is “sensitive to preventing conflicts of interest,” it has warned that
`
`disqualification should not be applied “mechanically” or “cavalierly.” In re ProEducation Int'l,
`
`Inc., 587 F.3d 296, 299–300 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Am. Airlines, 972 F.2d at 610; FDIC v. U.S.
`
`Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1312 (5th Cir. 1995)).
`
`Rather, the Fifth Circuit has directed courts to carefully “consider ‘[a]ll the facts particular
`
`to [the] case . . . in the context of the relevant ethical criteria and with meticulous deference to the
`
`litigant’s rights.’ ” Id. at 300 (quoting U.S. Fire, 50 F.3d at 1314.); Woods v. Covington Cty. Bank,
`
`537 F.2d 804, 810 (5th Cir. 1976) (“A court should be conscious of its responsibility to preserve a
`
`reasonable balance between the need to ensure ethical conduct on the part of lawyers appearing
`
`before it and other social interests, which include the litigant's right to freely chosen counsel.”).
`
`To that end, courts are to consider a motion to disqualify “in light of the litigant’s rights and the
`
`public interest, considering ‘whether a conflict has (1) the appearance of impropriety in general,
`
`or (2) a possibility that a specific impropriety will occur, and (3) the likelihood of public suspicion
`
`from the impropriety outweighs any social interests which will be served by the lawyer’s continued
`
`participation in the case.’ ” Horaist v. Doctor's Hosp. of Opelousas, 255 F.3d 261, 266 (5th Cir.
`
`2001) (citing Dresser, 972 F.2d at 543).
`
`When deciding a motion to disqualify, a court first looks to that court’s specific local rules.
`
`U.S. Fire, 50 F.3d at 1312. In the Eastern District of Texas, “[t]he standards of professional
`
`conduct adopted as part of the Rules Governing the State Bar of Texas shall serve as a guide
`
`governing the obligations and responsibilities of all attorneys appearing in this court.” L.R. AT-
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 32581
`
`2(a). District courts, however, are not limited to their local rules in deciding a motion to disqualify.
`
`Am. Airlines, 972 F.2d at 610. In fact, in reviewing motions to disqualify, courts must also
`
`“consider the ethical rules announced by the national profession in light of the public interest and
`
`the litigants’ rights.” Id. To this aim, the Fifth Circuit has acknowledged that the ABA Model
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Model Rules”) are the “national standards to consider in
`
`reviewing motions to disqualify.” ProEducation, 587 F.3d at 299. Therefore, the Court considers
`
`both the Texas Rules and the Model Rules.
`
`II.
`
`Relevant Ethical Rules
`
`Model Rule 1.09 provides:
`
`(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter
`represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which
`that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client
`unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
`
`(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially
`related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated
`had previously represented a client
`(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and
`(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules
`1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client
`gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
`
`(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or
`former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
`(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of
`the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with
`respect to a client, or when the information has become generally
`known; or
`(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules
`would permit or require with respect to a client.
`
`
`Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.09(a)–(b) provides:
`
`(a) Without prior consent, a lawyer who personally has formerly represented a client
`in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in a matter adverse to the
`former client:
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 32582
`
`(1) in which such other person questions the validity of the lawyer's services
`or work product for the former client;
`(2) if the representation in reasonable probability will involve a violation of
`Rule 1.05; or
`(3) if it is the same or a substantially related matter.
`
`
`(b) Except to the extent authorized by Rule 1.10, when lawyers are or have become
`members of or associated with a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a
`client if any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by
`paragraph (a).
`
`Both the Texas rules and Model Rules prohibit other lawyers from the disqualified
`
`attorney’s firm from representing the conflicting client. Tex. Disciplinary Rule of Prof’l Conduct
`
`1.09(b); Model R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a). But the Model Rules allow for screening as a means of
`
`avoiding imputed conflicts under certain circumstances. Model Rule 10(a)(2)(i)–(iii) provides:
`
`(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a
`client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by
`Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless
`
`
`
`(2) the prohibition is based on Rule 1.9(a) or (b) and arises out of the disqualified
`lawyer’s association with a prior firm, and
`
`
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in
`the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom;
`
`written notice is promptly given to any affected former client to
`enable the former client to ascertain compliance with the provisions
`of this Rule, which shall include a description of the screening
`procedures employed; a statement of the firm's and of the screened
`lawyer's compliance with these Rules; a statement that review may
`be available before a tribunal; and an agreement by the firm to
`respond promptly to any written inquiries or objections by the
`former client about the screening procedures; and
`
`(iii)
`
`certifications of compliance with these Rules and with the screening
`procedures are provided to the former client by the screened lawyer
`and by a partner of the firm, at reasonable intervals upon the former
`client's written request and upon termination of the screening
`procedures.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 32583
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Maxell moves to disqualify DLA Piper for failure to comply with the relevant ethical rules.
`
`Docket No. 554 at 9. In its motion, Maxell argues that because (1) DLA Piper did not implement
`
`a timely and effective screen as required by Model Rule 1.10(a)(2)(i), and (2) DLA Piper did not
`
`provide Maxell with prompt written notice as required by Model Rule 1.10(a)(2)(ii), Mr. Park’s
`
`conflict must be imputed to DLA Piper, disqualifying the firm from representing Apple in this
`
`case. Docket No. 554 at 9, 13.
`
`DLA Piper responds that no Maxell confidential information has been shared with any
`
`member of the firm and the firm reasonably screened Mr. Park from the Apple team. Docket No.
`
`576 at 8–12. DLA Piper contends that Maxell had adequate notice of its representation of Apple
`
`and the firm is willing to certify its ongoing compliance with the ethical rules. Id. at 12–13.
`
`Further, DLA Piper argues that disqualifying it at this stage of the case would be inequitable and
`
`highly prejudicial to Apple’s trial preparations. Id. at 13–15.
`
`There is no dispute that (1) Mr. Park acquired confidential information in his representation
`
`of Maxell during his time at Mayer Brown; and (2) Mr. Park is now associated with DLA Piper, a
`
`firm that is representing the opposing side of a very active Maxell matter. Arista Records LLC v.
`
`Lime Group LLC, No. 06 CV 5936 KMW, 2011 WL 672254, at *5 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 22, 2011); Park
`
`Decl. ¶ 3. The question for the Court is therefore whether Mr. Park’s status as a disqualified
`
`attorney must be imputed to DLA Piper.
`
`Conflicts are usually imputed to a disqualified attorney’s firm based on the presumption of
`
`shared client confidences. Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream, 409 F.3d 127, 132
`
`(2d Cir. 2005). Fifth Circuit and Texas law conflicts on whether this presumption is rebuttable.
`
`When a lawyer moves to another firm, Texas courts apply an irrebuttable presumption that the
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 640 Filed 03/02/21 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 32584
`
`lawyer shares confidences with its members, “requiring imputed disqualification of the firm.” In
`
`re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P., 320 S.W.3d 819, 824 (Tex. 2010). But “under Fifth
`
`Circuit precedent, there is no established irrebuttable presumption [that] a lawyer shares client
`
`confidences he possesses with other lawyers at his law firm.” Nat’l Oilwell, 60 F.Supp.3d at 762
`
`(citing ProEducation, 587 F.3d at 304 n.7). Indeed, “to the extent there is still a presumption . . .
`
`the presumption is rebuttable.” Id. at 763; see also DataTreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`
`No. 2:06-cv-72-DF, 2009 WL 10679840, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2009), aff’d, In re
`
`DataTreasury Corp., No. 2010-M928, 2010 WL 3074395 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Because motions to disqualify are governed by the law of the regional circuit, the Court
`
`will not apply an irrebuttable presumption that Mr. Park shared Maxell’s confidential information
`
`with other members of DLA Piper. 2 Adaptix, 2014 WL 11730482, at *4 (citing Picker, 869 F.2d
`
`at 580–81). Instead, DLA Piper may rebut any presumption that Mr. Park shared Maxell
`
`confidences with other DLA Piper attorneys based on the factual record. See Nat’l Oilwell, 60
`
`F.Supp.3d at 765–66, 767 n.11 (under Fifth Circuit law, the Court considers efforts to screen the
`
`disqualified attorney from the litigation as part of the factual record). In considering the factual
`
`record, the Court follows the balancing approach deemed most pruden

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket