Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-545, SECTION "R" (3)
September 22, 2003
MINUTE ENTRY
Presently before the Court is the motion of plaintiff s counsel, Best Koeppel, APLC, Lawrence E. Best and Peter S. Koeppel (collectively "Best-Koeppel"), seeking to compel production of documents and information from the defendant Rowan Companies, Inc ("Rowan"). Best-Koeppel submits that the discovery' is necessary to defend against Rowan's Motion to Disqualify plaintiffs counsel. The matter was the subject of an oral hearing before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. For the following reasons, the motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND
The instant seaman's suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff Ronnie Parker ("Parker") against his former employerm Rowan, claiming Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness of the mobile drilling unit (MODU) CECIL PROVINE, RIG 039 in Rowan's fleet. Parker also seeks an award of maintenance and cure. Parker claims that he sustained serious injuries while working on the rig floor because of a malfunction of the cathead and draw works of the aforesaid rig. On April 17, 2003, Rowan filed a motion to disqualify plaintiffs counsel, Best-Koeppel, based upon their former representation of Rowan, defending against approximately sixty (60) such Jones Act/Unseaworthiness/Maintenance and Cure cases filed by employees injured aboard various MODUs in its fleet, including one recent prior suit involving the CECIL PROVENE. The hearing on the Motion to Disqualify is set before the district judge on November 12, 2003 and the corporate deposition of Rowan was noticed for September 22, 2003.
II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Best-Koeppel submits that it propounded discovery pertinent to the resolution of the pending Motion to Disqualify, that Rowan's responses are woefully inadequate and that Rowan's objections are improper. Best-Koeppel argues that they are entitled to full and complete responses and/or production of documents, so that they can prepare for the corporate deposition and the imminent disqualification hearing. Best-Koeppel explains that the discovery requests are aimed at determining the legal and factual bases upon which the defendant relies to disqualify former counsel. More particularly, Best-Koeppel emphasizes that it must gain access to documents and information referred to in the Affidavit of William P. Hedrick, i.e., the affidavit submitted in support of Rowan's Motion for Disqualification.
Rowan notes that it is undisputed that Best-Koeppel formerly represented Rowan in over 60 cases over the time period of approximately 15 years beginning in 1987 and ending most recently in March, 2002, i.e., approximately six months after the date of Ronnie Parker's accident on September 13, 2001. Rowan explains that the documents sought via discovery only recently left Best-Koeppel's custody and were returned to Rowan.
The documents retrieved included two (2) files of general information and approximately 20 boxes of documents from Best-Koeppel. Rowan argues that an order to return these confidential matters to former counsel Best-Koeppel's custody and control defeats the very purpose of the Motion to Disqualify and threatens the disclosure of confidential/privileged materials to an adverse party by former counsel. It is not disputed that the law firm of Best-Koeppel was in possession of the two files of general information and at least 20 boxes of documents involving the various lawsuits of numerous Rowan employees, at the time that Best-Koeppel filed suit on behalf of Parker. Rowan argues that its own 18-page memorandum in support of the Motion to Disqualify more than amply details the overwhelming specific grounds for disqualification, and that no further discovery is necessary or warranted under the particular circumstances presented ( i.e., Best-Koeppel only recently returned the documents at issue to Rowan).
III. ANALYSIS
The issues presented are whether Rowan may refuse to produce documents and information that they refer to and rely upon as grounds for disqualification on the basis that such information is confidential and/or whether they may refuse to produce these documents on grounds that they are irrelevant to the determination of the Motion to Disqualify. Both Rowan and Best-Koeppel argue the merits of the pending Motion to Disqualify and Fifth Circuit law governing Motions to Disqualify in support of their respective positions on the pending discovery matters.
Motions to disqualify are substantive motions affecting the rights of the parties and are determined by applying standards developed under federal law. See In re American Airlines, Inc. 972 F.2d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 1992) ( citing In re Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1992)). Although federal courts may adopt state or ABA rules as their ethical standards, whether and how these rules apply are questions of federal law. Id.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has adopted the Rules of Professional Conduct utilized by the Supreme Court of Louisiana for its Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. U.L.L.R.83.2.10E, The following Rules of Professional Conduct are relevant to this motion:
Rule 1.9(a): A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter [r]epresent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation.
Rule 1.10(a): While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7, 1.8(c), 1.9, or 2.2.
Rule 1.10(b): When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, the firm may not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that lawyer, or a firm with which the lawyer was associated, had previously represented a client whose interests are materially adverse to that person and about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(b) that is material to the matter.
In addition, Canon 9 of the ABA Code proscribes that "(a) lawyer avoid even the appearance of impropriety." In the Fifth Circuit, disqualifications based on prior representation are governed by the "substantial relationship" test. A party seeking to disqualify opposing counsel on the ground of a former representation must establish two elements: (1) an actual attorney-client relationship between the moving party and the attorney he seeks to disqualify and (2) a substantial relationship between the subject matter of the former and present representations. See Hampton v. Daybrook Fisheries, Inc., 2001 WL 1444933 *2 (E. D. La.) (Vance, J.) ( citing American Airlines, 972 F.2d at 614). The test is "categorical in requiring disqualification once a substantial relationship between past and current representations is established." Id. There are two underlying concerns of the substantial relationship test: "the duty to preserve confidences and the duty of loyalty to a former client." Id. at 618.
Once it is established that the prior matters are substantially related to the present case, "the court will irrebuttably presume that relevant confidential information was disclosed during the former period of representation." Id. There is also an irrebuttable presumption that "confidences obtained by an individual lawyer will be shared with the other members of his firm." Id. see also In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 659 F.2d 1341, 1346 (5th Cir. 1981). Rules 1.10(a) and (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this Court and reiterated above reflect these presumptions.
In the Daybrook Fisheries case, Judge Vance determined that the mere fact that former counsel was privy to information regarding Daybrook's financial status, defense strategies, claims evaluation procedures and settlement goals in these types of personal injury suits that counsel could use against his former client was of little value on the substantial relationship issue. This information was set forth via affidavit in a conclusory manner. The district judge concluded that more than superficial similarities are required to satisfy the "substantial relationship" test, which is a fact-intensive inquiry, citing Duncan v. Merrill Lynch, 646 F.2d 1020, 1029 (5th Cir. 1981).
"Only when the moving party delineates with specificity the subject matters, issues, and causes of action presented in former representation can the district court determine if the substantial relationship test has been met." Duncan, 646 F.2d at 1029. Finding that Merrill Lynch presented the court with nothing more than a "superficial resemblance" between the past and present representation, the Duncan court reversed the district court's disqualification of plaintiffs counsel. Id.
Recognizing the Duncan court's focus, Judge Vance held that Daybrook Fisheries general assertion that counsel's previous representation involved maritime personal injury work provides the Court with no opportunity to engage in the "painstaking analysis of the facts" required by the Fifth Circuit. Id. at 1029. Based on the conclusory facts before it, Judge Vance could not find that counsel's representation violated Canon 9 of the ABA Code. Without actual impropriety, the district judge determined that a substantial relationship between the past and present representation was absent. Moreover, the district judge discerned no appearance of impropriety because counsel's representation of Daybrook occurred six years prior to Hampton's case against Daybrook Fisheries.
With these principles in mind, the Court now turns to the instant Motion to Compel. One element of the substantial relationship test has already been met in this case. It is undisputed that Rowan had an attorney-client relationship with the law firm, Best-Koeppel. It is not disputed that Best-Koeppel represented Rowan in approximately sixty maritime personal injury cases up through the time of the filing of the instant complaint on behalf of Parker.
Rowan has the burden of pleading specific similarities in the subject matter, issues and representation involved in both the instant case and prior representations so that the district court can determine if the "substantial relationship" test has been met. Rowan has prepared to do that by retrieving its files from Best-Koeppel. Rowan's corporate representative, William Hedrick, confected a fact-specific affidavit detailing similarities between the instant case and the former representations. Special emphasis and lengthy specific discussion were contained regarding the trial preparation involving three seaman cases of recent vintage in which Rowan was represented and defended by Best-Koeppel. Two of these cases were settled, one of which involved an accident on the CECIL PROVINE. Nevertheless, Best-Koeppel claims that the information/documents only recently retrieved by Rowan, whether confidential or not, must be re-disclosed and returned to former counsel, so that it can defend against Rowan's Motion to Disqualify.
The case of In re American Airlines and the ethical standards make it clear that whether Best-Koeppel should be disqualified depends on either a determination of whether Rowan has established either a substantial relationship between the subject matter of Best-Koeppel's former representation of Rowan and its current representation of Parker or that Best-Koeppel, through its former representation of Rowan, possesses relevant confidential information that may be used to Rowan's disadvantage.
A party seeking disqualification of an attorney based on the attorney's former representation of the party in a substantially related matter must show disqualification to be appropriate through a specific delineation of the "subject matters, issues and causes of action" common to both representations. American Airlines, 972 F.2d at 614. In this case, disqualification is premised on both a substantial relationship and on the theory that Best-Koeppel's current representation poses a threat that confidential information is being disclosed to an adverse party (Parker). Rowan's objections to the discovery requests are thus in the nature of damage control. Rowan's position is that Best-Koeppel cannot seriously argue that they are unfamiliar with the facts and circumstances of the prior representations. Disqualification motions based on a threat to confidential information are not viewed with any less scrutiny than substantial relationship motions. Because of the rights and issues involved, every disqualification motion requires the careful consideration of the Court and the precise application of precedent to the established facts.
In Islander East Rental Program v. Bill Ferguson, 917 F. Supp. 540 (S.D. Tex. 1996), the district judge considered a case involving disqualification not premised upon substantial relationship. The Court highlighted the concerns underlying the operation of the presumption and determined that those considerations were completely applicable to the case involving the threat of revealing client confidences gleaned through the former representation. The district judge specifically held that to require the former client to present any more detail about the disclosures made to counsel would effectively require him to reveal the very confidences he seeks to protect and would require "proof that would be improper to make." Id.
In the case of Green v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, 1998 WL 24424 *3 (E. D. La.) (Vance, J.), the court noted that even great prejudice to the party whose attorney is disqualified does not warrant departure from the applicable substantial relationship standard and that the Fifth Circuit has never allowed protective measures to rebut the presumption of shared confidences. Id. ( citing In re Corrugated Container, 659 F.2d at 1346). Judge Vance proceeded to find the matters of the appearance of impropriety, the duty to preserve confidences, and the duty of loyalty to a former client to be matters "of greater concern." Id. The Green court was careful not to underemphasize the factor of "the appearance of impropriety" in a case involving counsel, who was privy to all of the plaintiffs confidential materials for a period of eight months, and then became employed by a firm who represented a direct adversary. In the later representation, involving the plaintiffs direct adversary, most of the plaintiffs allegations focused on the actions taken by that direct adversary. The district court determined that the local ethical rules, Fifth Circuit precedent, and societal interests all required disqualification of counsel. Id. at *4.
In Eureka Homestead Society v. Howard, Weil Labouisse, Fredericks, Inc., 1994 WL 462991 (E. D. La.) (McNamara, J.), the district court's remarks regarding the "substantial relation" test and the duty of loyalty bear repetition. Judge McNamara explained:
In American Airlines, the Fifth Circuit continued its adherence to the "substantial relation" test . . . as the best means of protecting both client and confidences as well as preserving the duty of loyalty owed by a lawyer to his client. Americian Airlines, 972 F.2d at 619. As a result, the court bars attorneys from appearing in substantially related matters not only to protect parties from the adverse use of information, but also "to aid in the frank exchange between attorney and client." Id.
The In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 659 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1981) decision demonstrates what the duty of loyalty adds to the duty of confidentiality. The court held that advice given by an attorney to his client need not be relevant in the evidentiary sense to be substantially related. Id. at 1346. Rather, "it need only be akin to the present action in a way reasonable persons would understand as important to the issues involved." Id.Eureka Homestead, 1998 WL 462991 *2 (E. D. La.) (McNamara, J.).
Bearing the foregoing discussion in mind, the Court now turns to the specific discovery requests and Rowan's objections to Best-Koeppel's discovery requests.
Request for Production No. 5: Seeks production of a confidential study which Rowan provided to Best-Koeppel with periodic updates prepared by an expert retained by Rowan regarding the maintenance and cure rate.
Rowan points out that maintenance and cure is an item of damages specifically sought by Parker in the case at bar. Rowan notes that it has taken great steps to preserve the confidentiality of this study and now Best-Koeppel seeks its production, arguing that counsel's review of the study is necessary to refute the disqualification motion. Rowan contends that disclosure of the study would only serve to undermine the purpose of the motion to disqualify and would provide the plaintiff, through the back door, with that which he is not entitled to through normal discovery channels. Rowan points out that Best-Koeppel has not responded to its offer to produce the study in camera.
This Court notes that Best-Koeppel had possession, custody and control of this study for a lengthy period of time until Rowan demanded return of its files and other materials. Considering the foregoing, Best-Koeppel should be capable of assisting its own counsel in making whatever argument is appropriate and necessary without again threatening the disclosure of the confidential study to Parker by re-producing the materials for Best-Koeppel's, and concomitantly, Parker's benefit in the event that a ruling on the Motion to Disqualify be rendered in Best-Koeppel's favor. To be considered "substantially related," counsel need only demonstrate that the advice given an attorney to his client is "akin to the present action in a way reasonable persons would understand as important to the issues involved." See Eureka Homestead, 1994 W.L. 462991, *2 (E. D. La.). Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court issues following order.
IT IS ORDERED that the counsel for Rowan shall submit a copy of the aforesaid confidential study to the Court for in camera review, together with a privilege log.
Request for Production No. 6: Seeks production of the two files of general information.
Rowan argues that Best-Koeppel only recently returned the two (2) files of general information. Rowan reminds the Court that Best-Koeppel had possession of the information until March of 2003. The folders consist of information not related to any particular case, which Rowan provided its former counsel as a part of its then ongoing attorney-client relationship. Rowan submits that Best-Koeppel should be familiar enough with the information in those two files to discuss the matters thoroughly and intelligently with their attorney. As an alternative, Rowen has asked that it be allowed to submit the two folders in camera.
The substantial relationship test is fact-intensive and information of a general nature contained in the general files, only recently returned to Rowan, would serve no useful purpose insofar as refuting the motion to disqualify. Moreover, disclosure of the materials contained in the general client files would necessarily reveal attorney-client confidences. Best-Koeppel was in possession of these general files for years on end until most recently. The salient matters set forth in these general files retained by Best-Koeppel for over a decade should be well-known. The Court is not convinced by counsel's argument that only the production of documents will suffice for purposes of defending against the motion to disqualify. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Rowan's objection is SUSTAINED and Best-Koeppel's Motion to Compel is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 6.
Request for Production No. 8: Seeks production of any materials from the "over 32 boxes of closed files" which Best Koeppel previously maintained in its storage facility that (a) relates to any case that is substantially related to this case, or (b) relates to knowledge Best Koeppel allegedly gained regarding the "ins and outs of Rowan's business and key players. . . ."
The defendant objected on grounds of privilege (both attorney-client and work product) and that the request is repetitive of Request for Production No. 1. Rowan highlights that, at its own expense, it retrieved these very same boxes of documents. Defendant reiterates that Best-Koeppel only turned over 20 boxes to Rowan.
Rowan has in fact produced the Court filings from the three relatively recent matters which Rowan contends are substantially similar ( i.e, the Cantner, Talley, and Fincannon cases). Rowan contends that for the purposes of the instant motion to qualify, production of the Cantner, Talley and Fincannon documents is sufficient.
Hedrick explains via affidavit that, in the Talley matter, James (J.L.) Rawson, III, was the offshore installation manager aboard the GILBERT ROWE at the time of the Talley incident. Rowan points out that both Best and Koeppel met with Rawson on several occasions and that Koeppel participated as Rowan's counsel in Rawson's deposition taken in the Talley matter. Rowan highlights the fact that Rawson served as the rig manager aboard the CECIL PROVINE at the time of Barker's accident. Rawson is expected to be a witness in the Parker litigation as well.
Moreover, Hedrick notes that he served as the corporate representative in the Talley matter and that, in all likelihood, he will serve as the corporate representative in the case at bar. The GILBERT ROWE (jack-up drilling vessel Rig 038) and the CECIL PROVINE (Rig 039) are similar rigs and both the Parker and Talley cases involved claims for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure,
Allegations in the Talley case included the alleged failure to provide necessary medical care, transportation to the hospital, and failure to respond to plaintiffs medical needs which aggravated his condition. Hedrick notes that the Talley matter was compromised and was ultimately dismissed in October of 2000. Some of the topics addressed in Rowan's corporate deposition in the Talley matter are precisely the same as in the Parker matter, including Rowan's policies and procedures for removing injured workers from the rig and providing medical treatment to injured personnel on drilling rigs. Hedrick highlights that his testimony as the corporate representative in the Parker case will involve the very same facts he testified to in the Talley matter. Hedrick explains via affidavit that both Best and Koeppel attended his corporate deposition in the Talley matter as representatives of Rowan. Hedrick considers it noteworthy that he may also serve as a fact witness in the Parker matter.
Turning to the Fincannon matter, it involved a May 17, 2000 injury aboard the CECIL PROVINE, the very same MODU involved in the instant case. The Fincannon lawsuit involved claims of Jones Act negligence and the unseaworthiness of the CECIL PROVINE. Hedrick attests that he served as the point of contact in the Fincannon matter, a death case. He further attests that on December 22, 2000, while defending Rowan in the Fincannon matter, Koeppel traveled to the CECIL PROVINE, inspected and photographed the rig. Thereafter, Koeppel provided Hedrick with a detailed confidential report regarding the outcome of his inspection of the rig and his legal opinion regarding how facts developed during his inspection of the CECIL PROVINE might impact Rowan's position in the litigation.
Best and Koeppel terminated their longstanding relationship with Rowan in March of 2002, in the midst of their representation of Rowan in yet another matter pending in the 16th Judicial District for the Parish of St. Mary, entitled Joseph Cantner v. Rowan Companies, Inc. At the time of his injury, Cantner was employed by Rowan as a roustabout, working aboard the ROWAN FORT WORTH, yet another mobile drilling unit similar to the CECIL PROVINE. Cantner filed suit against Rowan on or about November 5, 2001, approximately 4 months before Best-Koeppel terminated their relationship with Rowan. Joseph Cantner's claims against Rowan include Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness.
This Court notes that Rowan has the burden of proof on the Motion to Disqualify and apparently Rowan's counsel believes it can carry its burden of proof on the basis of the aforesaid three case files ( i.e., Cantner, Talley, and Fincannon). This Court is convinced that production of the materials contained in the aforesaid three matters strikes the proper balance and provides sufficient information to address Rowan's Motion to Disqualify. Indeed, should Rowan underestimate the proof and the specificity which is necessary to prevail on the Motion to Disqualify, any resulting prejudice would inure to former counsel's benefit ( i.e., denial of the Motion to Disqualify Best-Koeppel). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Rowan's objections are SUSTAINED and the motion to compel supplemental response is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 8.
Request for Production No. 9: Seeks production of any and all claims files provided to Best-Koeppel by Mr. Hedrick.
Rowan objected on the grounds that it seeks information which is privileged and protected by the attorney/client and work product privileges. Rowan again argues that the production of any and all claim files would only serve to defeat the purpose of the Motion to Disqualify. Rowan points out that these are confidential claims files that it has provided to Best-Koeppel over the past 15 years in over 60 cases with the initial assignment of each case.
IT IS ORDERED that the Rowan's objections are SUSTAINED and Best-Koeppel's Motion to Compel is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 9.
Request for Production No. 10: Seeks production of the report referenced on page 10 of Rowan's Memorandum in Support, in which Mr. Koeppel commented on the results of an inspection of the CECIL PROVINE and how it might impact Rowan's defense in the Fincannon matter, which was settled.
Defendant points out that what Best-Koeppel seeks is the production of a confidential attorney-client communication which Koeppel provided to its then client following an inspection of the CECIL PROVINE in the Fincannon case. This is the same rig upon which Parker was allegedly injured and the unseaworthiness of the CECIL PROVINE is also the subject of the instant case. Rowan relies upon the activity of Koeppel in inspecting the vessel and writing a report in the Fincannon case to demonstrate that there is a substantial relationship with the Parker case. The study is also the basis of argument regarding the threat of disclosure of confidential information to adverse party. The defendant submits that there is an irrebuttable presumption that the confidential information was transmitted. See Corrugated Container, 659 F.2d at 1347. Rowan has offered to produce the letter subject to a confidentiality agreement and notes that Best-Koeppel has not responded.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to compel is GRANTED as to Request No. 10, however, Rowan will only be required to produce the aforesaid confidential letter subject to a confidentiality agreement.
Request for Production No 13: Seeks production of all correspondence referred to in Paragraph 11 of Mr. Hedrick's affidavit, as well as all replies from Best-Koeppel, and all past and current versions of the "mailing list for outside counsel" referenced in paragraph 11 of the affidavit.
Defendant objects on the grounds that the request is vague, overly broad, not limited to matters relating to disqualification and only serves to defeat the purpose of the Motion to Disqualify. Defendant argues that Best-Koeppel is seeking correspondence sent by Rowan to its outside counsel, including but not limited to Best-Koeppel, seeking advice regarding important decisions in the maritime and employment law fields relating to personal injury claims. Rowan highlights that the salient fact is not content of the documents, but rather that Rowan sought the advice of Best-Koeppel over the 15 years of their representation.
Considering that it is undisputed that Best-Koeppel has represented Rowan in numerous maritime personal injuries matter over last fifteen years, production of requested attorney-client communications would not serve any useful purpose in refuting the Motion to Disqualify. It would simply serve the purpose of disclosing privileged attorney-client communications, absent any good reason therefor. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Rowan's objections are SUSTAINED and Best Koeppel's Motion to Compel is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 13. The discovery request is overly broad and not reasonably related to the issues raised by the defendant's Motion to Disqualify.
Interrogatory No. 10: Requests the identification of any confidential information regarding Rowan's internal policies, practices and procedures which was conveyed to Mr. Hedrick by Best-Koeppel. Request for Production No. 11: Seeks production of all documents relating to Rowan's policies and procedures for removing injured workers from MODU's or rigs and for providing medical treatment to injured personnel on MODU's or drilling rigs. Request for Production No. 12: Seeks production of all documents regarding Rowan's safety practices.
Rowan objected to Interrogatory No. 10 and Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12 on the basis that they would require that the disclosure of confidential communications that would defeat the purpose of the motion to disqualify. Rowan notes that it is placed in the anomalous position of having to disclose the confidential information entrusted to Best-Koeppel in order to prevent those confidences from being revealed. The defendant refers to In Re Corrugated Container, 659 F.2d 1341, 1347 (5th Cir. 1981) and argues that it supports its position that it should not be required to disclose confidential materials. Rowan notes that, in response to the requested discovery, it has produced copies of the depositions from the Talley case in which the parties were asked specific questions about Rowan's policies, practices and procedures. The Hedrick Affidavit amply details the relationship between the Talley and Parker cases, the similar issues and a number of key witnesses common to both matters.
Best-Koeppel counters that the In Re Corrugated Container case is inapposite. The issue in that case was whether the defendant would be allowed to rebut the presumption by developing evidence of the nature of information actually disclosed during the prior representation. Best-Koeppel notes that the situation presented in this case is that they seek to prove that there is no substantial relationship between the prior representation and this case. Best Koeppel argues that they are entitled to the production of the universe of information ( i.e., facts, details and documents) to which the Hedrick affidavit refers.
This Court disagrees and finds that, as to Interrogatory No. 10 and Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12, Rowan's production of copies of the depositions taken in the Talley matter strikes an appropriate balance. This is particularly true considering that either Best or Koeppel or both prepared Rowan's employees for the depositions in the Talley matter. These same employees may be witnesses in the Parker case. The Talley, Fincannon, and Cantner cases are the specific matters which lay the groundwork for Rowan's Motion to Disqualify on the basis of "substantial relationship." The generalities ( i.e., fifteen years of representation and sixty cases) are undisputed and not the focus of the District Judge's inquiry on the Motion to Disqualify. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Best Koeppel's Motion to Compel supplemental response is DENIED as Interrogatory No. 10 and Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12.
Interrogatory No. 4: Seeks information regarding the amount of legal fees paid to other firms utilized by Rowan, during the years that Rowan paid any fees to Best, Koeppel, or their law firms.
Rowan submits that fees received by other firms is totally irrelevant to the disqualification issue and that such a question is only meant to harass the defendant.
Considering that information regarding the amount of fees payed to firms other than Best Koeppel has no bearing on any claim or issue in the case, the Court SUSTAINS Rowan's objection as to Interrogatory No. 4 and DENIES the Best Koeppel's Motion to Compel supplementary response in that regard. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Best Koeppel's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, all as more specifically set forth above.