Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 29, 2010 hearing on BP’s motion for continuance, Donato Ramos Jr., one of BP’s attorneys, told the court that Zaffirini and Jones were “plaintiffs in addition to being counsel.” Ramos Jr. also told the court that “[tjhere was a Favored[-]Nations Clause in Mr. Zaffirini’s clients[’] oil and gas lease.” Ramos Jr. heard Jones complain to the court about BP’s planned depositions “especially when a bunch of our clients didn’t even go to any of the negotiations.” BP first moved to disqualify Zaffirini and Jones on June 27, 2011, three days before the summary-judgment hearing, and almost seven months after the hearing in which BP’s counsel stated that Zaffirini was representing clients and heard that Jones was likewise representing others in the suit. See Vaughan, 875 S.W.2d at 690-91 (<HOLDING>); In re Davila, 04-99-00571-CV, 1999 WL 735164, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district court had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint (B) holding that by itself three and onehalf months was insufficient to prove causation (C) holding that even a potential conflict can justify disqualification (D) holding that three and onehalf months between the filing of an eeoc charge and the adverse employment action was insufficient by itself to establish causation (E) holding that party waived disqualification complaint by filing her motion six and onehalf months after learning of the potential conflict
Output (English): holding that a district court had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint