Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Time Warner Cable Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER memorializing rulings made during November 14, 2014 status conference regarding representation of Craig Cowden. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/14/2014. (ah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO., L.P.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

Case No. 11-2686-JWL

ORDER
The court convened a telephone status conference on November 14, 2014, to discuss
reported problems between the parties in attempting to meet-and-confer over the issue of the
representation of former-Sprint executive Craig Cowden by counsel for Time Warner Cable.1
As discussed on the record, unless the parties can come to a quicker solution with fewer
people involved, the court set a deadline of 4:00 p.m. on November 21, 2014, for the parties
to convene a conference call (with two full hours set aside), with all necessary decision
makers on the line,2 to meaningfully discuss, compare views, and if possible, reach
1

On October 21, 2014, the court denied without prejudice Sprint’s motion for a
protective order placing restrictions on the representation of Mr. Cowden by Latham &
Watkins, LLP (ECF doc. 452). The court directed the parties to meet-and-confer on the
issue.
2

Specifically, participants must include Sprint’s counsel B. Trent Webb and in-house
counsel Lee T. Lauridsen; Time Warner Cable’s counsel Jake Ryan and in-house counsel
Andy Block; Todd W. Ruskamp, the ethics advisor at the Shook, Hardy & Bacon law firm;
and Everett (Kip) Johnson, the ethics advisor at the Latham & Watkins law firm. The court
assumes, but is not requiring, the continued involvement of counsel Ryan Dykal and
Stephanie Grace.
11-2686-Tel.Conf. of 11-14-14.wpd

agreement on the issue.
In the hopefully unlikely event that the parties do not reach a resolution on the issue
of Mr. Cowden’s representation, the court set the following deadlines to govern a renewed
motion for a protective order by Sprint:
C

November 24, 2014: Sprint’s renewed motion and brief in support, limited to five
pages.

C

November 26, 2014: Time Warner Cable’s response in opposition, limited to five
pages.

C

December 1, 2014, at 12:00 p.m.: Sprint’s reply brief, if any, limited to two pages.
The court will endeavor to rule any renewed motion expeditiously.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 14, 2014, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge

11-2686-Tel.Conf. of 11-14-14.wpd

2