Square, Inc. et al v. REM Holdings 3, LLC

Filing 205

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: #175 MOTION for Relief PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTING THE COURT TO ORDER DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ADHERE TO STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND TO CEASE VEXATIOUS LITIGATION CONDUCT filed by Defendant REM Holdings 3, LLC, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Robert E. Morley, Jr. motion is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/4/15. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT E. MORLEY, JR., et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.

SQUARE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14cv172
Case No. 4:10cv2243 SNLJ
CONSOLIDATED

and
SQUARE, INC., et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
REM HOLDINGS 3, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs Robert E. Morley, Jr. and REM
Holdings 3, LLC’s motion requesting the Court to order defense counsel to adhere to
standards of professional conduct and to cease vexatious litigation conduct (#175). The
parties have been engaged in contentious litigation for five years. Most recently,
defendants assert that they are in possession of a “smoking gun document” that proves
plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on recent fabrications. Defendants had been threatening to file a
1

motion to compel production of privileged documents under the crime-fraud exception,
which was in fact filed on August 31, 2015. Those threats and other actions caused
plaintiffs to file their motion for relief from allegedly unprofessional conduct by defense
counsel (#175).
Plaintiffs contend that defense counsel has been engaging in vexatious litigation
tactics. Their memorandum and exhibits (along with defendants’ response) paint a
colorful picture of recent litigation activity. Plaintiffs’ counsel state they were wrongly
accused of violating their “duty of candor” in the Patent Trials and Appeals Board
proceedings related to this case, that defense counsel have repeatedly threatened sanctions
for issues like the location of a party’s deposition and the alleged “fraud on the court,” and
that defense counsel suggested that plaintiff Morley himself could be criminally charged
for conduct related to this litigation. Plaintiffs suggest that these accusations appear to be
pretext for invading plaintiffs’ attorney-client privilege and work product protection.
The Court has read the letters, e-mail chains, and transcripts associated with
plaintiffs’ motion. Because all attorneys are bound by the rules of professional conduct,
defense counsel is already obligated to conduct their practice accordingly, so the motion is
moot. Plaintiffs seek no other relief in their motion.

2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion requesting the Court to order
defense counsel to adhere to standards of professional conduct and to cease vexatious
litigation conduct (#175) is DENIED as moot.
Dated this

4th

day of September, 2015.

____________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3