Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02658/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02658-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 The factual background to the current litigation and Orrick's prior representation of plaintiff is

described in the court's October 27, 2009 order. 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT —No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 1/13/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MANDANA D. FARHANG, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

KHARAGPUR; TECHNOLOGY

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TRAINING

SOCIETY; PARTHA P. CHAKRABARTI;

PALLAB DASGUPTA; GURASHISH S.

BRAR; RAKESH GUPTA; PRAVANJAN

CHOUDHURY; SUBRAT PANDA;

ANIMESH NASKAR, and DOES 1 through

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C-08-02658 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANT 

[Re Docket No. 29]

Plaintiff Mandana Farhang moves to disqualify counsel for defendant Indian Institute of

Technology, Kharagpur ("IIT"), Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ("Orrick"). For the reasons set

forth below, the court denies the motion.

I. ANALYSIS

Ms. Farhang seeks disqualification of Orrick because Orrick previously represented her and

allegedly obtained confidential information material to the instant case.1

 

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 98 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT —No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 2

A. Legal Standard

Rule 3-310(E) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct states that a member of the bar

"shall not, without the informed written consent of the client or former client, accept employment

adverse to the client or former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or former

client, the member has obtained confidential information material to the employment." Furthermore,

"it has long been recognized that knowledge obtained by one member of a firm of lawyers is

imputed to all the other members." Rosenfeld Construction Co. v. Superior Court, 235 Cal. App. 3d

566, 573 (1991). Because Rule 3-310(E) does not specifically address the instance where the

"tainted" attorneys (those attorneys who originally worked on the case and received confidential

information) have departed the firm, California courts have looked to the ABA Model Rules of

Professional Conduct when dealing with this circumstance. Goldberg v. Warner/Chappell Music,

Inc., 125 Cal. App. 4th 752, 765 (2005); Adams v. Aerojet-General Corp., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1324,

1337 (2001); Dieter v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 963 F. Supp. 908, 912 (E.D. Cal. 1997). ABA

Model Rule 1.10(b) provides:

When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited

from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a

client represented by the firm, unless: (1) the matter is the same or substantially

related to that which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and (2)

any lawyer remaining in the firm has [protected] information . . . that is material to

the matter. 

Consequently, when the "tainted" attorney has departed the firm, the presumption of imputed

knowledge is rebutted when "the evidence establishes that no one other than the departed attorney

had any dealings with the client or obtained confidential information." Goldberg, 125 Cal. App. 4th

at 755. The firm seeking to rebut the presumption of imputed knowledge bears the burden of

showing that no attorney still at the firm has material confidential information. Id. 

B. The Court's Prior Findings

After reviewing the papers and hearing the arguments of counsel, the court issued an initial

order on this disqualification motion on October 27, 2009. As set forth in its October 27, 2009

order, the court found that the current litigation is substantially related to Orrick's prior

representation of Ms. Farhang. However, none of the three attorneys who billed time to Ms.

Farhang's matter are still employed at Orrick. Because there was a factual gap as to whether any

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 98 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT —No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 3

attorney remaining at Orrick has protected information from the previous representation of Ms.

Farhang that is material to the current litigation, the court found that an evidentiary hearing on this

issue was necessary. 

C. Findings Pursuant to the Evidentiary Hearing

On January 12, 2010, the court held an evidentiary hearing to enable a dispassionate

assessment of whether material confidential information was actually exchanged, directly or

indirectly, between Ms. Farhang and any attorney still working at Orrick. As discussed above,

Orrick has the burden of establishing that no current Orrick attorney has confidential information

material to the current litigation. Goldberg, 125 Cal. App. 4th at 755. After considering the

testimony of witnesses, submitted declarations and exhibits, and the arguments of counsel, the court

finds that Orrick has met its burden. 

In her second declaration submitted to the court in support of her motion to disqualify

counsel, Ms. Farhang alleged that: (1) she had discussed confidential information with an attorney in

Orrick's Corporate Practice Group, and (2) Mr. Telfer, an attorney who worked on her case but is no

longer employed at Orrick, told her that he had shared her confidential information with other

members of the firm, including Jonathan Ocker, a current partner at Orrick and head of its

Compensation and Benefits Practice Group. Second Decl. of Mandana D. Farhang in support of the

Mot. to Disqualify Counsel ¶ 3. In addition, at the evidentiary hearing, counsel for Ms. Farhang

argued, for the first time, that confidential information had been shared with attorneys in Orrick's

Intellectual Property ("IP") Practice Group. 

1. Ms. Farhang's Alleged Discussion with a Corporate Attorney

Ms. Farhang testified that she had spoken directly with a corporate attorney at Orrick

regarding the formation of a corporate entity called NEWCO; however, she was unable to recall the

name of the corporate attorney. In response to Ms. Farhang's concerns regarding her alleged

discussion of confidential information with a corporate attorney, an Orrick attorney testified that he

had personally interviewed every corporate attorney firm-wide who had been employed by Orrick at

the time Orrick represented Ms. Farhang and was still an employee at Orrick. None of these

employees recalled having ever heard of Ms. Farhang or having received any confidential

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 98 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT —No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 4

information relating to Orrick's representation of Ms. Farhang. In addition, Mr. Kaufman, the Orrick

attorney tasked with investigating the potential conflict issues raised in this case, testified that he had

performed a broad search for Ms. Farhang's name in Orrick's timekeeping database and had found no

mention of her name in the time entries of any attorney still at Orrick. Based on the testimony heard

at the evidentiary hearing and the declarations submitted to the court, the court finds that Orrick has

established that no corporate attorney still at Orrick has confidential information material to the

current litigation.

2. Mr. Telfer's Alleged Consultation with Mr. Ocker

Ms. Farhang testified that she believed that Mr. Telfer had consulted with Mr. Ocker during

Orrick's previous representation of her. As evidenced by two emails addressed to Mr. Telfer that

were submitted to the court under seal as Exhibits 4 and 5, she had expressed interest in knowing

what Mr. Ocker thought about a couple of issues relating to her agreement with Ikonodyne. Ms.

Farhang did not present any written evidence, such as a reply email from Mr. Telfer, showing that

Mr. Telfer had in fact consulted with Mr. Ocker regarding her matter. She did testify that her oral

conversations with Mr. Telfer had led her to believe that he had consulted with Mr. Ocker regarding

these issues. She conceded that she was not present during any such consultation; therefore, she did

not have firsthand knowledge as to whether Mr. Telfer actually consulted with Mr. Ocker. 

In a supplemental declaration submitted to the court, Mr. Telfer stated, "In connection with

Mandana Farhang's representation, I may have consulted with another partner, Jonathan Ocker at

Orrick but due to the amount of time that has passed, I can not recollect that discussion." 

Supplemental Decl. of James Telfer in support of Mot. to Disqualify Counsel ¶ 6. The court finds

this statement provides little help in determining whether Mr. Telfer actually communicated material

confidential information to Mr. Ocker since apparently Mr. Telfer cannot recall whether he did or

did not consult with Mr. Ocker. 

Mr. Ocker testified that he and Mr. Telfer had never discussed Ms. Farhang's case and that he

had never been exposed to any information relating to Orrick's previous representation of Ms.

Farhang. He further testified that although he was the head of the practice group to which Mr.

Telfer had belonged, as a matter of practice, he did not routinely supervise and consult on matters on

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 98 Filed 01/13/10 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT —No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 5

which Mr. Telfer worked. In light of Ms. Farhang's lack of firsthand knowledge regarding whether

Mr. Telfer had actually consulted with Mr. Ocker, and Mr. Telfer's inability to remember whether he

had consulted with Mr. Ocker or not, the court finds that Mr. Ocker's testimony is sufficient to

establish that he did not receive any confidential information relating to Orrick's previous

representation of Ms. Farhang.

3. Mr. Telfer's Alleged Consultation with IP Attorneys

At the evidentiary hearing, counsel for Ms. Farhang argued, for the first time, that

confidential information had been shared with IP attorneys at Orrick. Ms. Farhang testified that she

had asked Mr. Telfer to consult with Orrick's IP attorneys on IP-related issues. Her testimony

regarding this request is corroborated to some extent by an email dated October 22, 2000 that was

submitted to the court under seal as Exhibit 6. That email expresses Ms. Farhang's interest in having

Orrick's "Intellectual Property guys" look at the portion of her employment agreement pertaining to

rights to technology. However, Ms. Farhang did not present any written evidence, such as a reply

email from Mr. Telfer or written advice from an IP attorney, showing that Mr. Telfer had in fact

consulted with any IP attorneys regarding her matter. She did testify that her oral conversations

with Mr. Telfer had led her to believe that he had consulted with IP attorneys regarding her

concerns. She conceded that she was not present during any such consultation; therefore, she did

not have firsthand knowledge as to whether Mr. Telfer actually consulted with any IP attorneys on

her behalf. She was also unable to identify by name any IP attorneys with whom Mr. Telfer may

have consulted on her matter. Further, her email expressing an interest in having IP attorneys look

at the technology portion of her employment agreement was sent toward the end of her relationship

with Orrick, and she acknowledged that the counsel who thereafter negotiated a settlement with

Ikonodyne did not look at her IP rights because they turned out not to be an issue. 

Prior to the evidentiary hearing, Ms. Farhang submitted two separate declarations to the

court in support of her motion to disqualify counsel. Though she specifically alleged contact with a

corporate attorney and the sharing of information with Mr. Ocker, neither of these declarations

mention the possibility that her confidential information may have been shared with Orrick's IP

attorneys. Likewise, neither Mr. Telfer's initial declaration nor his supplemental declaration in

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 98 Filed 01/13/10 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Ms. Farhang expressed concern that anyone at Orrick could have accessed her closed file at

Orrick. Although this is theoretically possible, there is no evidence anyone did, except for Mr.

Kaufman for the purpose of investigating Ms. Farhang's assertion of a conflict. Furthermore, having

reviewed the client file submitted by Orrick, which contains all the documents that Orrick still has

from its prior representation of Ms. Farhang, the court finds that it does not, by itself, contain any

confidential information that is material to the current litigation. 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT —No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 6

support of Ms. Farhang's motion to disqualify counsel mention any consultation with IP attorneys or

the possibility that confidential information was shared with Orrick's IP attorneys.

As mentioned above, Mr. Kaufman testified that he had performed a broad search for Ms.

Farhang's name in Orrick's timekeeping database and had found no mention of her name in the time

entries of any attorney still at Orrick – including IP attorneys. Based on the testimony heard at the

evidentiary hearing and the declarations submitted to the court, the court finds that Orrick has

established that no attorney still at Orrick, IP or otherwise, has confidential information material to

the current litigation.2 Having rebutted the presumption of imputed knowledge, Orrick is not barred

from representing IIT in the current litigation. 

II. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the motion to disqualify counsel for defendant

IIT. The parties are to confer regarding a hearing date for the pending motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and pursuant to the doctrine of forum non

conveniens and are to contact the courtroom deputy, Jackie Garcia, (408) 535-7375, to set a hearing

date. 

DATED: 1/13/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 98 Filed 01/13/10 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT —No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 7

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Micah R. Jacobs mjacobs@mbvlaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant:

I. Neel Chatterjee nchatterjee@orrick.com 

Craig R. Kaufman ckaufman@orrick.com 

Nitin Gambhir ngambhir@orrick.com 

Theresa Ann Sutton tsutton@orrick.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/13/10 CCL

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 98 Filed 01/13/10 Page 7 of 7