Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER RE 21 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSELby Judge Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California CONCEPTUS, INC., Plaintiff, v. HOLOGIC, INC., Defendant. / No. C 09-02280 WHA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL In this patent-infringement action, defendant moves to disqualify plaintiff's law firm. Plaintiff Conceptus, Inc. is represented by Baker & McKenzie in this action. Baker & McKenzie also represents defendant Hologic, Inc., but in other matters. For the reasons stated at the hearing today, the motion to disqualify is GRANTED. Baker & McKenzie is disqualified from representing Conceptus in this action. The firm is ordered to withdraw from representing plaintiff, with one minor exception. Baker & McKenzie may remain in the case for the limited purpose of completing the pending expedited document production to Hologic. Conceptus is hereby ordered to obtain successor counsel who is to file a notice of appearance and to appear at the case management conference scheduled below. All pending motions are stayed until after the appearance of successor counsel. Any scheduled hearings on pending motions are VACATED. Motions shall be renoticed after the appearance of plaintiff's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 successor counsel and in accordance with a schedule to be set at the case management conference set for AUGUST 19, 2009 AT 9:00 A.M. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2009. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?