18-CIV-04832 WOODLAND PARK PROPERTY OWNER, LLC VS. GRACE M. CHEW, ET AL.

WOODLAND PARK PROPERTY OWNER, LLC GRACE M. CHEW
DANIEL J. MARSH MEREDITH A. JONES-MCKEOWN

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL PERKINS COIE LLP BY WOODLAND PARK PROPERTY OWNER, LLC TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing of this motion is continued to April 17, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department.

Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer who communicated with a prospective client shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same “or a substantially related matter” if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter.” (Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.18(b), (c).)

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Chew failed to close escrow on the sale of Chew’s property after consulting with Perkins Coie. Plaintiff contends that certain confidential information, which Plaintiff alleges was shared with Perkins Coie during a May 4, 2017 telephone conversation, gave negotiating leverage to Chew. This explains why Plaintiff believes Chew failed to close escrow, but it does not explain how the confidential information could be used for defending against Plaintiff’s complaint or prosecuting Chew’s cross-complaint. Plaintiff also argues that “The information provided is highly relevant and clearly material to the current dispute (and indeed might have precipitated it).” (Moving P&A at 15: 5-16.) The materiality of the information to the current dispute is not clear.

The Court directs Plaintiff to file a Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities, explaining clearly and in sufficient detail the specific manner in which the present litigation is the “same or substantially related matter” as the one-hour phone consultation Plaintiff Woodland Park had with Perkins Coie on May 4, 2017. The Supplemental Brief must explain how the purportedly confidential information “could be significantly harmful to [Plaintiff Woodland Park]” (see Rule 1.18(c)) in the present lawsuit.

Plaintiff shall file and serve its Supplemental Brief, not to exceed five pages, no later than April 2, 2019.

Defendant may file a Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief, not to exceed five pages, no later than April 10, 2019.

For all parties: Supplemental declarations may be included, if reasonably necessary. All supplemental papers may be filed under seal, so long as publicly redacted versions comply with California Rules of Court Rule 2.551 (redactions must be narrowly drawn). All service shall be by personal, electronic, or overnight delivery.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.