Vaccine Center, LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al

Filing 91

ORDER that the parties file supplemental briefs re 84 Emergency Motion to Disqualify Greenberg Traurig, LLP from Representing Apexus, Inc. in This Action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tht Plaintiff to provide directly to the undersigneds chambers the evidence and chart described in order for the Courts in camera review. Supplemental Briefs due by 4/22/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 04/16/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

THE VACCINE CENTER, LLC,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

vs.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC,

11

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01849-JCM-NJK
ORDER RE: MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
(Docket No. 84)

12
13

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Greenberg Traurig as counsel for

14

Defendant Apexus, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Docket No. 84). The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to

15

file the supplemental briefing identified below no later than noon on April 22, 2013. The Court

16

further ORDERS Plaintiff to provide directly to the undersigned’s chambers the evidence and chart

17

described below for the Court’s in camera review no later than noon on April 22, 2013.1

18

The Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct generally prohibit attorneys from representing

19

parties adverse to prospective clients “if the lawyer received information from the prospective client

20

that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter.” Nev. R. Prof. Conduct 1.18(c); see

21

also Local Rule IA 10-7 (the Court adheres to the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct). Plaintiff

22

argues that the Court’s evaluation of Greenberg Traurig’s compliance with Rule 1.18 should be

23

determined without analyzing the actual information provided to Greenberg Traurig by Plaintiff: “‘a

24

court should not inquire into whether an attorney actually acquired confidential information’ related

25

to the current matter . . . [but rather] should make ‘a realistic appraisal of whether confidences might

26

have been disclosed’ by the client.” Mot. at 10 (emphasis in original) (quoting Waid v. District

27
28

1

The Court makes no determinations today and nothing herein should be construed as such.

1

Court, 121 Nev. 605, 609-10 (2005)). The Court, however, notes that Waid does not involve rules

2

regarding prospective clients, but rather the rules governing attorney responsibility with respect to

3

actual, former clients. See 121 Nev. at 609-10. Moreover, the rules governing attorney

4

responsibility with respect to actual clients do not include language similar to Rule 1.18(c)’s explicit

5

limitation to instances where “the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could

6

be significantly harmful to that person in the matter.” See Waid, 121 Nev. at 609 (quoting former

7

Rule 159). Plaintiff argues that this case law applies without addressing the fact that it does not

8

analyze Rule 1.18 and/or duties owed to prospective clients. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to

9

persuade the Court at this time that it may resolve the pending motion by making “a realistic

10
11

appraisal of whether confidences might have been disclosed.”
For its part, Defendant relies on authority involving prospective clients, rather than actual

12

clients. But this authority is issued by courts from other jurisdictions. For example, Defendant

13

relies on ADP, Inc. v. PMJ Enterprises, LLC, which states that “the moving party must proffer

14

compelling evidence showing that significantly harmful information was disclosed.” 2007 WL

15

836658, *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2007). ADP appears to analyze an ethical rule identical in relevant part

16

to Nev. R. Prof. Conduct 1.18(c), but Defendant failed to identify Nevada authority addressing Rule

17

1.18 and/or prospective clients, or to otherwise explain why the Court should rely on authority from

18

other jurisdictions. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to persuade the Court at this time that it

19

should resolve the pending motion based on the standards enunciated in other jurisdictions.

20

In short, Plaintiff relies on Nevada authority addressing a different rule of conduct with

21

different language, without explaining why that authority governs the Court’s analysis here; while

22

Defendant relies on out-of-state authority involving the same or similar rule, but without explaining

23

why the Court should rely on that authority rather than the Nevada authority cited by Plaintiff.

24

Because the parties have not sufficiently discussed the threshold issue of the relevant inquiry to be

25

conducted, the Court ORDERS the parties to submit supplemental briefing of no longer than 8

26

pages addressing the proper inquiry for the Court to make with respect to Rule 1.18(c)’s limitation

27

to instances where “the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be

28

significantly harmful to that person in the matter.”
2

1

In addition, Plaintiff’s briefing noted that it would make available to the Court “additional

2

details and documents” provided to Greenberg Traurig by Dr. Baktari. See Mot. at 14 n.1. The

3

Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to provide the following for the undersigned’s in camera review.

4

First, Plaintiff shall provide evidence establishing the information exchanged (whether documentary

5

in nature or through a declaration). Second, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with a chart that (1)

6

identifies each piece of particular potentially harmful information (e.g., relevant facts, theories of the

7

claim, mental impressions, etc.); (2) cites the evidence showing it was disclosed to Greenberg

8

Traurig; (3) explains why such information is potentially harmful; (4) explains whether that

9

information was disclosed to Apexus directly and/or was disclosed to a non-attorney third party,

10

such as government personnel; and (5) if so disclosed, provides the details of that disclosure.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: April 16, 2013

13
14
15

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3