Farhang v. Indian institute of Technology Kharagpur et al

Filing 397

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 382 Motion Requiring Defendants' Counsel to Comply with September 30, 2011 Stipulation. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

M.A. MOBILE LTD., a limited liability
company chartered in Dominica; and
MANDANA D. FARHANG,

13

Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15
16
17
18

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
KHARAGPUR, an Indian Institute of
Technology incorporated under the
“Institutes of Technology Act, 1961”;
TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRENEURSHIP
AND TRAINING SOCIETY, an Indian
society; PARTHA P. CHAKRABARTI; and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive,

19

Defendants.

20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 08-CV-02658-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
REQUIRING DEFENDANTS’
COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 STIPULATION
[Re Docket No. 382]

21
Plaintiff Mandana D. Farhang (“plaintiff”) filed the instant motion against defendant Indian
22
Institute of Technology Kharagpur (“IITK”) and defendant’s counsel, Orrick, Herrington &
23
Sutcliffe LLP, (“Orrick”) seeking compliance with a stipulation requiring certain Orrick attorneys
24
to be separated by an ethical wall. The court has heard the arguments of the parties and considered
25
the papers submitted. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion.
26
27
28
CVH

1

Case No.: 08-CV-02658-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION REQUIRING DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH STIPULATION

1

I. BACKGROUND

2

In the underlying action, plaintiff brings claims against IITK and various others for breach

3

of contract, fraud, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Dkt. No. 305, Ex. 1. Since 2009, Orrick

4

has represented IITK in connection with plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. No. 25. On May 20, 2011, Orrick

5

approached plaintiff’s counsel with a waiver of conflict so that it could hire Mr. Jeffrey McKenna

6

to work in Orrick’s Bay Area practice. Dkt. No. 310.

7

Previously, Mr. McKenna worked as a mid-level associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate,

8

Meagher & Flom LLP (“Skadden”). At Skadden, he participated in the representation of plaintiff in

9

a wrongful termination suit against her former employer, HT Oil LLP, (the “HT Oil action”) that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

included causes of action for violations of the California Labor Code, fraudulent inducement,

11

negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

12

dealing, and defamation. See Dkt. No. 305, Ex. 2. These claims stemmed from a fraud allegedly

13

perpetrated by one of the general partners of HT Oil. See Dkt. No. 310, Ex. 2.

14

From July 2007 to September 2007, Mr. McKenna billed 224 hours on plaintiff’s HT Oil

15

action. Dkt. No. 310, Ex. 2. Although plaintiff and Mr. McKenna did not personally meet while he

16

worked on the matter, see Dkt. No. 382, plaintiff alleges that Mr. McKenna performed extensive

17

work on the case, including drafting of documentation relating to summary judgment motions,

18

researching a defamation cause of action and various contractual causes of action, attending

19

hearings, reviewing depositions, interacting with the chief architect of plaintiff’s litigation strategy,

20

attorney Jose Allen, as well as reporting directly to him on all matters. See Dkt. No. 310, Ex. 2.

21

Plaintiff also alleges that during this time she “shared information about her technology, its

22

perceived value, her work with the IITK joint venture, and the impact of that experience on her

23

career and net worth” with Mr. Allen and his team. Id. Plaintiff’s billing records show that Mr.

24

McKenna performed at least the following specific tasks:

25

July 13, 2007

CONFER WITH J. ALLEN RE MSJ OPPOSITION AND
STRATEGY DISUCSSION RE DEPOSITION SCHEDULE…

August 3, 2007

CONFER WITH J. ALLEN REGARDING STRATEGY…

26
27
28

Id.
CVH

2

Case No.: 08-CV-02658-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION REQUIRING DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH STIPULATION

1

Because of Mr. McKenna’s history, plaintiff initially declined to consent to the requested

2

waiver. However, plaintiff later agreed not to seek disqualification of Orrick on the grounds of Mr.

3

McKenna’s hiring, provided that Orrick agreed to a suitable ethical wall. On September 30, 2011,

4

the parties reached stipulation including the following terms:

5

(g)

During the pendency of the Current Action (and any subsequent litigation involving
the current dispute between Ms. Farhang and Defendant IITK or its affiliates), in
which Orrick represents IITK and/or its affiliates, Mr. McKenna will not reside in
the same physical office building as Neel Chatterjee, Theresa Sutton, or whichever
attorney is then current lead attorney for the IITK matter.
(h)
Maintenance of the ethical wall will be monitored by an attorney who (1) does not
reside in the same office as the principal headquarters for the lead Orrick attorneys
responsible for the IITK representation (currently Orrick’s Silicon Valley office),
(2) is not a member of Orrick’s intellectual property practice group.

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Dkt. No. 323, ¶ 1(g)-(h). Plaintiff indicated that it “would not seek to disqualify Orrick based upon
Mr. McKenna’s employment,” so long as Orrick complied with the agreed upon stipulation. Dkt.
No. 323.

14
15
16
17

After agreeing to the terms of the stipulation, Mr. McKenna was hired in Orrick’s ediscovery practice group in the firm’s San Francisco office. See Dkt. No. 384. Mr. James E.
Thompson, an associate in Orrick’s securities litigation practice group in San Francisco, was
tasked with monitoring the maintenance of the ethical wall.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff alleges that Orrick has breached the terms of the stipulation by appointing partner
Karen Johnson-McKewan, who works on the same floor of the San Francisco office as Mr.
McKenna, to the role of co-lead, or lead attorney on the IITK matter. Plaintiff grounds this
contention, among other things, on Ms. Johnson-McKewan’s appearance at a February 17, 2012
case management conference, which plaintiff alleges was in fact a Rule 26(f) conference. See Dkt.
No. 382. Ms. Johnson-McKewan was also listed as lead attorney when her appearance was entered
by Orrick on the ECF docket. Orrick concedes that Ms. Johnson-McKewan “filled in” for Neel
Chatterjee on occasion, but contends that she was not appointed lead attorney on the matter. See
Dkt. No. 386, Chatterjee Decl. When plaintiff raised the issue of a stipulation violation at the
February 17, 2012 conference, Ms. Johnson-McKewan informed the court that she was unaware of

28
CVH

3

Case No.: 08-CV-02658-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION REQUIRING DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH STIPULATION

1

the stipulation and did not know Mr. McKenna because Orrick’s “San Francisco office is quite

2

large.” Dkt. No. 382, Ex. C. She advised the court that the parties would meet and confer to

3

discuss the issue.

4

The parties have been unable to resolve this dispute. Orrick has since moved Mr. McKenna

5

from the seventh floor of Orrick’s San Francisco office to the ninth floor. See Dkt. No. 389,

6

Thompson Decl. Plaintiff now argues that Orrick should either (1) remove Ms. Johnson-McKewan

7

from representation of IITK in this matter (and all related matters) as long as she is principally

8

located in San Francisco1 or (2) remove Mr. McKenna from the Bay Area if both Orrick’s Silicon

9

Valley office and San Francisco office remain involved in the instant action. Alternatively,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

plaintiff seeks disqualification of Orrick should Orrick fail to comply with the above conditions or

11

if the court deems the current circumstances sufficient to constitute a violation of the State Bar

12

Rules of Professional Conduct.

13

II. DISCUSSION

14

At the outset, the court notes that it is not expressing an opinion as to whether Mr.

15

McKenna possesses confidential information as a result of his participation in the representation of

16

plaintiff while he worked at Skadden, or whether a substantial relationship exists between the

17

instant action and plaintiff’s previous action against her former employer. Although the parties

18

devote a great deal of attention in their papers to these issues, plaintiff’s primary purpose in filing

19

the instant motion appears to be ensuring Orrick’s compliance with the stipulation agreement.

20

Accordingly, the court narrows its discussion to two issues: (1) whether Ms. Johnson-McKewan is

21

“lead attorney” on the IITK matter, and (2) if so, whether Orrick has complied with the stipulation

22

by moving Mr. McKenna from the seventh floor of the firm’s San Francisco office, where Ms.

23

Johnson-McKewan resides, to the ninth floor.

24

“Lead attorney” is not defined in the stipulation. The stipulation is also ambiguous as to

25

whether there can be only one “lead attorney” or multiple lead attorneys. The purpose of the

26

stipulation seems to be preventing interaction between Mr. McKenna and any Orrick lawyer with

27

1

28

Orrick maintains that Ms. Johnson-McKewan splits her time between Orrick’s San Francisco and
Silicon Valley offices, though she spends most of her time in the San Francisco office. See Dkt.
No. 388, Johnson-McKewan Decl.
CVH
4
Case No.: 08-CV-02658-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION REQUIRING DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH STIPULATION

1

policy-making authority, which suggests that there could be more than one “lead attorney.”

2

Furthermore, the stipulation states that “maintenance of the ethical wall will be monitored by an

3

attorney who does not reside in the same office as the… lead Orrick attorneys…” Dkt. No. 323, ¶

4

1(h) (emphasis added), suggesting that there can be more than one lead attorney. As such, the court

5

finds that the stipulation allows for more than one “lead attorney,” and now turns to Ms. Johnson-

6

Mckewan’s involvement in the case.

7

It is undisputed that Ms. Johnson-McKewan appeared at a February 17, 2012 case

8

management conference on behalf of IITK. See Dkt. No. 383, Ex. C. In leading to that appearance,

9

Theresa Sutton emailed plaintiff’s counsel about setting a date for a Rule 26(f) conference, noting

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that “the Rule 26 conference is a good opportunity to discuss a solution before the parties begin

11

unbridled discovery. We should attempt to find a time to conduct such a meeting.” Dkt. No. 383,

12

Ex. D. Further, Ms. Sutton stated in another email, “We are amenable to setting up a Rule 26(f)

13

conference in February…” Id. The February 17, 2012 conference was the first date the parties

14

appeared before the court after these emails. Id at Ex. C. The parties discussed the discovery

15

schedule at this conference and Ms. Johnson-McKewan was present and addressed the court on

16

behalf of IITK. Id. “The conferring and planning that is mandated by [Rule] 26(f) and by ADR

17

Local Rule 3-5 must be done by lead trial counsel for each party.” Civil L.R. 16-3. Orrick contends

18

that the conference was not intended to be a Rule 26(f) conference, but just a status conference.

19

Whether the February 17, 2012 conference was a Rule 26(f) conference or not, the court finds it

20

clear that only a person with policy-making authority would have participated at the conference.

21

Additionally, the court notes that Ms. Johnson-McKewan was listed as lead attorney on the

22

Official Court Document Filing System (“ECF”). Orrick contends that a secretary “accidentally”

23

designated her as lead attorney for the case. While the court certainly appreciates secretarial

24

mishaps, Ms. Johnson-McKewan’s designation as lead attorney, along with her purported lack of

25

knowledge of the stipulation is indicative of Orrick’s somewhat laissez-faire approach to

26

complying with the stipulation.

27
28

Accordingly, for the purposes of this stipulation, the court finds that Ms. JohnsonMcKewan has assumed the role of “lead attorney.”
CVH

5

Case No.: 08-CV-02658-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION REQUIRING DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH STIPULATION

The court also finds unpersuasive Orrick’s contention that it has complied with the

2

stipulation by prohibiting communication between Mr. McKenna and Ms. Johnson-McKewan and

3

moving the lawyers to different floors. While there is no evidence that Ms. Johnson-McKewan has

4

had any contact with Mr. McKenna, and while the court does not disagree that these protective

5

measures may be effective safeguards, the stipulation is clear: “Mr. McKenna will not reside in the

6

same physical office building as Neel Chatterjee, Theresa Sutton, or whichever attorney is then

7

current lead attorney for the IITK matter.” Dkt. No. 323, ¶ 1(g) (emphasis added). Because Ms.

8

Johnson-McKewan is a lead attorney on the case, and because she resides in the same office

9

building in San Francisco as Mr. McKenna, Orrick has violated the plain terms of the stipulation.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

III. ORDER

11

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants plaintiff’s motion. Orrick may either (1) remove

12

Ms. Johnson-McKewan from representation of IITK in the instant action, (2) move Mr. McKenna

13

from Orrick’s Bay Area offices so long as lead attorneys for the instant action reside in the firm’s

14

San Francisco and Silicon Valley offices, or (3) move Ms. Johnson-McKewan to the Silicon Valley

15

Office. Should Orrick fail to adopt one of these proposals, plaintiff may move for disqualification

16

as provided by the stipulation.

17
18
19

Dated: ___July 17, 2012________

_____________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CVH

6

Case No.: 08-CV-02658-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION REQUIRING DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH STIPULATION