Filing 101

ORDER DENYING Relator George Gage's 100 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (klw)

r:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

2OI8fAR29

r

j

3:32
y

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex.
rel. GEORGE GAGE,
Plaintiff,

CAUSE NO.:
A-16-CV-00803-SS

-vs-

ROLLS-ROYCE NORTH AMERICA,
INC., ROLLS-ROYCE
DEUTSCHLAND LTD & CO. KG,
SIERRA NEVADA TECHNICAL
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause,

and specifically Relator George Gage's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [#100]. Having

considered the document, the case as a whole, and the governing law, the Court now enters the
following opinion and order.

Background
The facts of this case and each party's positions in the current lawsuit are set forth in

greater detail in the Court's Order entered on March 12, 2018.
[#97].

See

Order of Mar. 12, 2018

The Court granted Defendants Rolls-Royce North America, Inc. and Rolls-Royce

Deutschland, Ltd. & Co. KG (collectively, Rolls-Royce)'s motion to dismiss, dismissing all
asserted claims with prejudice. Id. In the same Order, the Court also granted Rolls-Royce's

motion to disqualify Gage's attorney, Donald Little. Id.
Gage now asks this Court to alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) with respect to the disqualification of attorney Little.

See

Mot. [#100]. For the

reasons explained below, the Court denies Gage's motion.

/

Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) gives a party twenty-eight days after entry of a

judgment to file a motion asking the court to alter or amend that judgment.

FED. R. CIV. P.

59(e),

"Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly." Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). "[S]uch a motion is
not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been
offered or raised before the entry of judgment," but instead is intended to allow a court to correct
manifest errors of law or fact, to correct inadvertent clerical errors, or to present newly
discovered evidence. Id.
Gage offers three issues he contends the Court and Magistrate Judge never addressed in

disqualifying attorney Little: (1) "Mandatory Disclosure Adverse to a client under Texas

Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.05(e) and (f)"; (2) "potential harm to American
members of the Armed Services"; and (3) proffered "documents demonstrating fraud and crimes
by both Rolls-Royce and Davis Aviation." See Mot. [#100] at 2-4. Because of these issues,
Gage and his counsel "request the Court to amend the disqualification of Donald E. Little under

the crime-fraud exception in the interests of justice and national security." Id. at 4.
Contrary to Gage's representation, the Magistrate Judge did address the issues Gage
raises in this motion.

Gage argued these points in response to Rolls-Royce's motion to

disqualify attorney Little. See Resp. [#60]. At the hearing, Gage re-urged these arguments and
the Magistrate Judge explained at length why they were unconvincing. See Dec. 4, 2018, Hr'g
Tr. [#87] at 37:2-45:25. The Magistrate Judge recommended disqualifying Little "since: (1) he

had a more-than-decade long attorney-client relationship with Rolls-Royce; and (2) there is a

substantial relationship between the subject matter of the present representation and a matter on

which Little previously represented Rolls-Royce, specifically

Davis

I."

See R. & R. [#911

at 8-

10. Gage objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, but notably did not present any

the arguments he raises now.

See

of

Objs. [#93] at 8-9. The Court overruled Gage's objections

and granted Rolls-Royce's motion to disqualify Little.

See

Order of Mar. 12, 2018 [#97] at 3-4.

For the same reasons the Magistrate Judge explained, the Court finds Gage's arguments

in the instant motion unpersuasive.

Gage believes attorney Little should be permitted to

represent Gage in this matter adverse to his former client Rolls-Royce in order to prevent a crime
or fraud that threatens death or serious bodily harm to others.

See

Mot. [#100] at 2-4 (citing

exceptions in Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1 .02(d)(e),

1

.05(e)(f)). The

fundamental problem, however, is Gage fails to distinguish between two distinct attorney

obligationsprotecting a former client's confidential information and not representing another
party in a matter adverse to a former client. This Court has never ruled on whether Little may
disclose confidential information obtained while representing Rolls-Royce as in-house counsel
from 1997 through 2008 and as outside counsel in Davis

I.

Instead, the Court disqualified Little

under Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1 .09(a)(3) because Little, without prior
consent, sought to represent Gage "in this matter adverse to Little's former client Rolls-Royce on
a matter that is the same or substantially related."

Order of Mar. 12, 2018 [#97] at 4.

Put

simply, Gage has failed to identify any exception that exempts Little from the former-client

conflict of interest rule, and disqualification is therefore appropriate.
In light of Gage's failure to identify manifest errors of law or fact, inadvertent clerical
errors, or newly discovered evidence, there is no basis for altering or amending the Court's

earlier judgment under Rule 5 9(e).

3

Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Relator George Gage's Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment [#100] is DENIED.

SIGNED

this the

day of March 2018.

SPARK"1

SAM
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4