Kannan v. Apple Inc.
Filing
292
ORDER denying 252 Administrative Motion ; denying 258 Administrative Motion. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on July 2, 2020. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2020)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
RAJA KANNAN,
8
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
APPLE INC.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Defendant.
12
Case No. 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
DEFENSE COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A “REDO”
OF EXPERT DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. Nos. 252, 258
13
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to continue expert discovery and Plaintiff’s motion
14
15
to disqualify defense counsel. While Plaintiff filed these as separate motions, they are based on
16
the same grounds. In each, Plaintiff argues that: (1) defense counsel violated various California
17
Rules of Professional Conduct and (2) this is grounds for the Court to disqualify defense counsel
18
and readjust the discovery deadlines to account for defense counsel’s misconduct. Having
19
considered the Parties’ papers, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions.1
I.
20
BACKGROUND
21
At the start of this case, Plaintiff was represented by counsel (Karen Ford). However, in
22
January 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and Plaintiff has since
23
proceeded pro se. After this Court granted Ms. Ford’s motion to withdraw, Plaintiff’s expert,
24
25
26
27
28
1
Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), this Court finds this motion suitable for consideration
without oral argument.
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
1
1
Stanley Stephenson, PhD, told Plaintiff that he would not be deposed unless Plaintiff provided him
2
with an attorney to “defend the deposition.” This was unknown to Defendant; following Ms.
3
Ford’s release, Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff via telephone or email at least 24 times
4
to try and obtain Stephenson’s deposition.
5
Before Ms. Ford’s withdraw, on December 18, 2019, Ms. Ford disclosed Dr. Stephenson
6
as Plaintiff’s retained expert for economic damages. On January 3, 2020, Defendant served
7
Plaintiff with Apple’s Request for Production, Set Three (“RFP Set Three”) and Notice of Expert
8
Deposition, which set the deposition for Stephenson for January 30, 2020. See Declaration of
9
Todd K. Boyer in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Disqualify Counsel (“Boyer Decl.”) at Ex. A, Dkt. 276-1.
On January 30, 2020, counsel for Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff regarding
12
Stephenson’s deposition and Apple’s RFP Set Three. Plaintiff told defense counsel that
13
Stephenson would not be available until on or after February 17, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 3–4. The Parties
14
then stipulated to continue various expert discovery deadlines to accommodate for this change.
15
Dkts. 233, 234. On February 5, 2020, Stephenson emailed Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that he
16
refused to travel to California unless Defendant paid him in advance for fees and travel costs. See
17
Declaration of Raja Kannan in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel (“Kannan Decl.”) at Ex.
18
B, Dkt. 258. He also told Plaintiff that he did not “want to be deposed anywhere unless protected
19
by an attorney” and that if Plaintiff could not “retain counsel before [he was] deposed, [he] must
20
resign.” Id.
21
On February 10, 2020, the Parties agreed to proceed with Stephenson’s deposition for
22
February 19, 2020 in Palo Alto, California and Defendant agreed to pay for Stephenson’s
23
reasonable travel expenses and his hourly fees for testimony. Boyer Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C. On
24
February 17, 2020, two days before his scheduled deposition, Stephenson emailed defense counsel
25
and Plaintiff that he “did not wish to appear” for his deposition and was “sending . . . [a] heads
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
2
1
up.” Id., Ex. E. Defendant agreed to take the deposition off calendar and emailed Plaintiff to ask
2
if Stephenson was withdrawing as an expert. Id. Plaintiff responded that Stephenson was not
3
withdrawing but was “not comfortable doing a deposition without an attorney representing him.”
4
Id.
On February 21, 2020, defense counsel again met and conferred with Plaintiff about setting
6
Stephenson’s deposition for March 13, 2020. Plaintiff agreed to provide responses to Defendant’s
7
Third RFP by March 10. Id., Ex. F. On February 27, Plaintiff told defense counsel that he would
8
confirm the deposition date and that he was in the final stages of engaging an attorney. Id., Ex. G.
9
On March 2 and 3, Apple’s counsel again emailed Plaintiff requesting confirmation of March 13
10
for Stephenson’s deposition, and Plaintiff claimed his potential lawyer was hospitalized. Id. On
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
March 12, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff and offered to reschedule Stephenson’s deposition for
12
March 18, 19, or 20, prior to the discovery cutoff of March 23. Id. On March 16, Plaintiff
13
advised that he was unable to finalize the agreement with the potential attorney and requested two
14
days to evaluate whether he would engage an attorney. Id. Defense counsel asked Plaintiff to
15
advise Defendant by March 18 whether he would engage an attorney. Id. Plaintiff failed to do
16
this and failed to provide his response to Defendant’s RFP. Id. Defense counsel then emailed
17
Plaintiff on March 18 and 19 and offered to stipulate to a continuance of the case management
18
deadlines in a last effort to resolve these issues. Id., Ex. H. On March 20, the parties filed a
19
stipulation to continue the deadlines for four weeks. Dkt. 237; see also Dkt. 238 (granting
20
stipulation).
21
On March 24, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff asking for dates for Stephenson’s
22
deposition by April 3, to avoid running up against the expert discovery cutoff of April 20. Boyer
23
Decl., Ex. I. Plaintiff did not respond. On March 27, Defense counsel again emailed Plaintiff,
24
who replied, “you will be soon hearing from my lawyer.” Id. On March 31 and April 1, after not
25
having heard from Plaintiff or an attorney representing Plaintiff, defense counsel again emailed
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
3
1
Plaintiff to request dates for Stephenson’s deposition. Id. Plaintiff responded on April 2 that he
2
needed more time because “everyone is busy and not reachable with the Covid-19 outbreak” and
3
that he would provide Stephenson’s availability before the expert discovery cutoff. Id. On April
4
7, after Defendant still had not heard back from Plaintiff, defense counsel again asked about
5
Stephenson’s availability. Id. Defendant agreed to take Stephenson’s deposition via
6
videoconference. Id. Plaintiff did not respond until Friday April 10, 2020 and stated, for the first
7
time that he would not be retaining an attorney and demanded that the Parties submit a joint
8
discovery brief regarding his access to AEO documents (“AEO Brief”)2 before setting a date for
9
Stephenson’s deposition. Id.
On April 14, the parties had a telephonic meet and confer call to discuss Stephenson’s
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
deposition, Plaintiff’s outstanding responses and document production to Defendant’s Third RFP,
12
and the Parties’ AEO Brief. Boyer Decl., Ex. J. The Parties ultimately stipulated to a four-week
13
continuance of the case management deadlines, which the Court granted. Dkt. 243.
Defendant ultimately filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff then threatened to file a motion
14
15
with the Court on the basis that Apple was using the Court’s Discovery Order to “harass” him on
16
deadlines. Boyer Decl., Ex. P. On April 28, the Parties appeared before Judge DeMarchi for the
17
Discovery Hearing regarding the AEO Brief and Motion to Compel. Dkt. 245. During the
18
hearing, the court denied Defendant’s Motion to Compel because Defendant was required to serve
19
a subpoena on Stephenson (a nonparty witness) in order to compel his deposition and his
20
production of documents. Judge DeMarchi advised Plaintiff that “as soon as we are done with this
21
call, Apple is going to fix this problem and serve a subpoena on Mr. [Stephenson]” and advised
22
Plaintiff to obtain an attorney for the litigation, or at least to handle the deposition of Plaintiff’s
23
expert. Dkt. 247, April 28, 2020 RT, 25:15-23.
24
25
26
27
28
2
This Court has already issued an order regarding the AEO documents. See Dkt. 278.
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
4
1
After the hearing before Judge DeMarchi, defense counsel emailed Stephenson and
2
Plaintiff that (1) Stephenson would be subpoenaed for his testimony and documents and (2)
3
requested that Stephenson accept service of the subpoena via email so as to avoid personal service.
4
Boyer Decl., ¶ 33, Ex. R. Stephenson responded thanking defense counsel for the email and
5
requesting “a day or so to discuss[sic] couple things with Mr. Kannan and his lawyer.” Boyer
6
Decl., ¶ 33, Ex. R. On April 29, Apple’s counsel emailed Plaintiff the Notice of Deposition of
7
Stephenson Pursuant to Subpoena (“Subpoena”). Boyer Decl., ¶ 34, Ex. S.
8
9
By April 30, Stephenson and Plaintiff still had not responded accepting service of the
subpoena via email, so Defendant personally served the Subpoena on Stephenson. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 45 requires two weeks’ advance notice to serve a subpoena. Expert discovery
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
closed on May 18. Apple thus had only 3 days to locate and serve Stephenson. The Subpoena
12
noticed Stephenson’s deposition and production of documents for May 18, 2020 at defense
13
counsel’s office in Palo Alto, with the intent that the deposition be taken via video conference.
14
Boyer Decl. ¶ 35, Ex. U.
15
On April 30, the Parties had a phone call to discuss Stephenson’s deposition and the
16
disclosure of AEO documents. Id. ¶ 38, Ex. W. After the call, Plaintiff sent an email
17
summarizing the Parties’ discussion. Id. Plaintiff confirmed that the Parties agreed Stephenson’s
18
deposition “will be a video deposition even though the Subpoena says the place of deposition is to
19
be at Palo Alto.” Id. Thus, both Plaintiff and Stephenson were advised four hours after service of
20
the subpoena that the deposition would take place via video. Id. ¶ 38, Ex. W; see also Kannan
21
Decl., Ex. O (Plaintiff advised Stephenson that “Apple were ok to take a remote deposition”).
22
On April 30, Plaintiff sent another email at 1:18 p.m. asking defense counsel not to
23
communicate directly with Stephenson. Boyer Decl., ¶ 39, Ex. X. Plaintiff demanded that any
24
future communications to Stephenson be communicated through Plaintiff and not directly emailed
25
to Stephenson, even if Plaintiff was copied on the email. Id. Apple’s counsel clarified that:
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
5
Usually, we don’t need to go through this process as experts usually
appear, but given the Court’s order, we were required to subpoena
him. We tried to avoid having him served personally, but without his
consent to be served by email, we had no choice but to go through this
process. We don’t intend to communicate with him directly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Id., Ex. X.
At 3:31 p.m., on April 30, Stephenson emailed defense counsel and Plaintiff and confirmed
that he was served with the Subpoena and provided written objections. Boyer Decl., Ex. Y.
Stephenson noted that: (1) he could not be compelled to travel from his residence and place of
business in Tampa, Florida to Palo Alto because it is more than 100 miles away and noted his
concerns with traveling due to the current COVID-19 restrictions and (2) objected to the request
for production of native Excel files and formulas as this sought highly confidential trade secrets.
Id. Defense counsel emailed Plaintiff (without cc’ing Stephenson) to respond to Stephenson’s
written objection. Id. ¶ 41, Ex. Z. On May 7, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff asking if Plaintiff
had informed Stephenson of Apple’s response to his written objections with regards to designating
certain confidential documents as “Confidential” under the protective order. Id. ¶ 45, Ex. CC.
Defense counsel also asked if Kannan had retained an attorney to represent Stephenson at the
deposition. Id.
At 11:41 a.m., on May 7, Stephenson emailed defense counsel directly and copied
Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s former counsel (Karen Ford), and another attorney named Joseph Klatt. Id.,
¶ 46, Ex. DD. Stephenson stated that: “Due to a variety of reasons I must withdraw from my work
in this case effective immediately. I have already informed Mr. Raja Kannan of my withdrawal,
and that I would be communicating this to you directly. I do not intend to testify, either in
deposition or at trial. I am here copying Karen Ford and Joseph Klatt, as I understand they are his
former and possibly current legal counsel, respectively.” Id. Defense counsel responded to
Stephenson’s email, copying Plaintiff, and Joseph Klatt confirming receipt of the notice of
withdrawal. Id. Plaintiff emailed defense counsel and stated that Defendant should not take
Stephenson’s email as “an office notice of withdrawal” as Plaintiff was working on addressing
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
6
1
Stephenson’s concerns and “unwarranted fear” of attending the deposition. Id. Plaintiff stated
2
that he would personally confirm whether Stephenson was withdrawing, that he had not retained
3
any other counsel, and again requested that counsel for Defendant not contact Mr. Klatt or
4
Stephenson, even if Plaintiff was copied. Id.
5
At 12:58 pm on May 7, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff advising that, if Plaintiff is
represented by counsel, he must have his counsel communicate directly with defense counsel. Id.
7
¶ 49, Ex. DD. Defense counsel also clarified that Defendant would not withdraw the subpoena for
8
documents even if Stephenson withdrew. Id. At 5:27 p.m. on May 7, Plaintiff emailed defense
9
counsel and claimed that defense counsels’ conduct “intimidated and tampered [with]” Stephenson
10
because: (1) defense counsel contacted Stephenson without Plaintiff’s consent or authorization; (2)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
Defendant issued a subpoena commanding Stephenson to come to Palo Alto, California for his
12
deposition amid the prior agreement to take a remote video deposition due to COVID-19; (3)
13
Defendant issued a subpoena at Stephenson’s home in the early morning (8:45am), instead of
14
using Stephenson’s business address, to intimidate Stephenson; (4) defense counsel communicated
15
with Mr. Klatt “based on hearsay and assuming things without [Plaintiff’s] consent;” (5)
16
Stephenson expressed that Defendant appears to be using tactics to get him to quit and he is
17
feeling that pressure; (6) after Plaintiff informed defense counsel that Stephenson feels he has an
18
obligation to respond to defense counsel, defense counsel failed to make an attempt to instruct
19
Stephenson that he should not be communicating with defense counsel directly, and instead “left
20
the conversation open-ended to manipulate his fear”; and (7) Defendant used “unusual tactics” to
21
prevent Plaintiff from attending the AEO portions of Stephenson’s deposition. Id. ¶ 50, Ex. EE.
22
At 5:28 p.m. on May 7, Plaintiff again emailed defense counsel and stated that he did not
23
have an attorney but noted that he was still reviewing if it was possible for him to obtain an
24
attorney to defend Stephenson’s deposition in a limited scope to make him feel comfortable. Id.,
25
Ex. DD. Plaintiff also stated that he would need to confirm Stephenson’s withdrawal and resolve
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
7
1
the issues surrounding the AEO portions of the expert testimony as well as the “tampering” issues
2
before he responded to defense counsels’ statements about not withdrawing the subpoena. Id.
3
Plaintiff also threatened to file a motion for sanctions. Thereafter, on May 11, defense counsel
4
followed up with Plaintiff regarding whether Stephenson would be testifying, asking for the
5
location of the deposition, and even offering to allow Stephenson to take the deposition in his own
6
home to alleviate his alleged “fear” of a deposition. Id., Ex. GG.
On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to continue expert discovery and
8
pre-trial deadlines. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Continue Expert Discovery and Pre-Trial
9
Deadlines (“Deadline Mot.”), Dkt. 252; see also Reply re Administrative Motion to Continue
10
Expert Discovery (“Deadline Reply”), Dkt. 264. Defendant filed an opposition to this motion.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
Opposition re Administrative Motion to Continue Expert Discovery (“Opp.”), Dkt. 258. On May
12
25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second administrative motion to disqualify defense counsel, for
13
monetary sanctions, and to allow a “redo” of expert discovery. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion
14
to Disqualify Counsel (“Mot.”); see also Reply re Administrative Motion to Disqualify Counsel
15
(“Reply”), Dkt. 280. Defendant filed a second opposition to this motion. Opposition re
16
Administrative Motion to Disqualify Counsel (“Opp.”), Dkt. 276. Plaintiff argues in his motions
17
that the above events show that defense counsel violated various California Rules of Professional
18
Conduct and that this is grounds to (1) disqualify defense counsel, (2) sanction counsel, and (3)
19
redo discovery.
20
21
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts apply state law in determining matters of disqualification. Reading Int’l,
22
Inc. v. Malulani Grp., Ltd., 814 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Nicholson v. Accumax
23
Holdings, Inc., 2019 WL 4228376, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2019) (“Federal courts apply the
24
relevant state law to determine motions to disqualify an attorney.”).
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
8
1
III.
DISCUSSION
2
Plaintiff bases his motion for disqualification on defense counsel’s communication with
3
Stephenson—specifically, Plaintiff argues that it was improper for defense counsel (1) to serve
4
Stephenson with a subpoena at his home, (2) for the subpoena to list Palo Alto as the place of
5
deposition, and (3) for defense counsel to email Stephenson directly. These reasons do not present
6
adequate grounds to sanction defense counsel or to redo discovery.
7
First, there is no ethical rule that presents defense counsel from directly consulting with an
8
expert. Plaintiff cites ethical rules that prevent counsel from consulting with a represented person.
9
See Mot. at 10–11. In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that, even while no ethical rule directly
prevents opposing counsel from consulting with an adversary’s expert, various cases have held
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
such ex parte contact to be sanctionable. Plaintiff overstates these cases. In Erickson v. Newmar
12
Corp., a case that Plaintiff relies on, defense counsel was found to have acted unethically after
13
counsel offered to hire the pro se plaintiff’s expert. 87 F.3d 298, 302 (9th Cir. 1996). Erickson,
14
however, contemplated that counsel may contact opposing expert witnesses pursuant to the
15
“limited and controlled” process of discovery. Id. at 301–02. Here, defense counsel only
16
contacted Mr. Stephenson to ask if he would accept service of the subpoena by email. Federal
17
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires subpoenas to be personally served; thus, only Mr.
18
Stephenson could waive the requirement of personal service. See Newell v. Cty. of San Diego,
19
2013 WL 4774767 *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2013). This contact thus fits comfortably within the type
20
of communication discussed in Erickson. Moreover, the type of communication at issue here
21
(emailing to confirm withdrawal and waiver of service) is completely different from actionable
22
conduct discussed in Erickson.
23
Second, to the extent Plaintiff argues the subpoena itself was improper as it “intimidated”
24
Stephenson, Judge DeMarchi specifically instructed Plaintiff that Defendant would subpoena
25
Stephenson. The Court will not sanction defense counsel for properly using the Federal Rules of
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
9
1
2
Civil Procedure.
Third, while the Court understands Plaintiff’s concerns about Stephenson being personally
3
served at his home, the Court also recognizes that, in light of COVID-19, defense counsel had no
4
choice but to serve Stephenson at his home due to shelter-in-place orders.
5
Fourth, even while the subpoena listed Palo Alto as the place for the deposition, as noted
6
above, defense counsel told Plaintiff (who told Stephenson) that the deposition would be done via
7
video due to COVID-19. Indeed, defense counsel attempted to work with Plaintiff to help ease
8
Stephenson’s concerns, which appear to be rooted in Plaintiff’s failure to provide an attorney to
9
defend the deposition. That Plaintiff’s contract with Stephenson did not mandate an attorney is
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
irrelevant.
Fifth, defense counsel had an ethical obligation to contact Mr. Klatt and confirm that he
12
was not representing Plaintiff. As Plaintiff notes in his motion, the ethical rules prevent defense
13
counsel from directly contacting a represented party.
14
Finally, Plaintiff seemingly blames defense counsel for not informing Stephenson that he
15
did not have an obligation to email defense counsel. This is confusing—Plaintiff argues it was
16
unethical for defense counsel to directly contact Stephenson, but then simultaneously argues
17
defense counsel behaved unethically by not contacting Stephenson. Regardless, Plaintiff provides
18
no rule or case that would require defense counsel to contact Stephenson and tell him that he need
19
not contact defense counsel.
20
Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not shown this Court that defense counsel engaged in
21
unethical conduct, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defense counsel is DENIED. For this same
22
reason, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and to “redo” expert discovery based on defense counsel’s
23
malfeasance is also DENIED. Finally, because Plaintiff has not presented the Court with cause to
24
extend the discovery deadlines, his request to extend discovery is also DENIED.
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions to continue expert discovery and to
disqualify and sanction defense counsel are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 2, 2020
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A "REDO" OF EXPERT
DISCOVERY
11
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?