Ruling on the defendant’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order denying its motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, Judge Schroeder noted that while the facts indicate an obvious conflict of interest, the defendant specifically waived most of the conflicts.
The court’s order set out its expectations of lead counsel in a patent case, and laid out the potential consequences of a late change in designation. (Lead is the one on the left – second chair always has that weird look, don’t they?)
Judge Payne granted the motion, and ordered that the individuals be screened off from certain communications with the plaintiffs.
Plaintiff sought to disqualify defendant’s counsel because it had represented plaintiff in acquiring the patent in suit.
That might actually be a typo since the groom is later identified as a plaintiff. Still, interesting facts on what such a motion needs.
Two perennial issues of interest in this order.
The question presented was whether a prior consultation disqualified an expert.
This dispute between the National Rifle Association and its former PR agency has already spun off these Rule 12 and pair of disqualification orders.
This case required analysis of the rule that an attorney cannot be an advocate and witness in the same litigation.
This case analyzes a claim of a conflict of interest with a former client.