Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNERGY TECH & DESIGN INC. d/b/a

ROAD ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JIM TERRY, SANDY TERRY, JIM

MEEKINS, DIXIE MEEKINS, JD

DISTRIBUTING, and ROAD ARMOR USA,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-02073 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS ON

MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

AND VACATING HEARING ON

MOTIONS TO AMEND AND FOR

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to disqualify the Seed Law Group PLLC as

well as Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint and to enforce the Court’s order re discovery

dispute and for sanctions. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motions are appropriate for disposition without oral

argument. In the event that the Court finds the Seed Law Group is not disqualified, the Court

will deem the motions submitted and issue a written order. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). In the event

the Court finds the Seed Law Group is disqualified, it is not yet clear whether the Court may

resolve the pending motions. In either case, the hearing set for April 13, 2007 on Plaintiff’s

motions is HEREBY VACATED. 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

APRIL 13, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M. ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION:

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 159 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The parties shall have 25 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Can the Court decide Plaintiff’s pending motions to amend the complaint and to

enforce the Court’s discovery order if the Court grants Defendants’ motion to

disqualify the Seed Law Group PLLC?

2. Did Defendant Jim Terry effectively waive his objection to the possible conflict

of Plaintiff proceeding with the Seed Law Group by filing his motion for

disqualification at this time? Is substitution of new counsel sufficient good cause

for the delay? What prejudice will Synergy suffer from the delay as opposed to

the consequences of the disqualification itself?

3. If the Court finds that the filing of the provisional patent created a reasonable

expectation of the formation of an attorney-client relationship between the Seed

Law Group and Mr. Terry, has that relationship been terminated? If so, what

evidence in the record supports the termination?

4. If the Court finds that there was an attorney-client relationship, what evidence in

the record establishes whether the information pertinent to the filing of the

provisional patent was known or disclosed to Synergy representatives? 

a. Mr. Terry states that he gave Mr. Costanza confidential

information. (Terry Decl., ¶ 4; Terry Suppl. Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.)

Is there any other corroborating evidence?

b. Plaintiff contends that the information transmitted by Mr. Terry to

Mr. Costanza regarding the axle was information Synergy already

had, but the record citations do not support the contention. 

(Surreply at 5-6, citing Tufts Decl., ¶ 14 (expressing opinion that

Terry’s relationship with firm was in his representative capacity);

Tufts Suppl. Decl., ¶ 4 (discussing technical nature of attorneyclient relationship); Tufts Suppl. Decl., ¶ 7 (discussing evidence

that information was disclosed in representative capacity and

disclosed also to Synergy when the firm acted as Synergy’s patent

counsel, citing Terry Suppl. Decl.).) 

Is there any corroborating evidence?

c. Is the proper standard whether Synergy had actual knowledge of

the information transmitted to the Seed Law Group or whether the

company had imputed knowledge?

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 159 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5. Is there a substantial relationship between the provisional patent and the current

trademark dispute? Synergy contends that there is no relationship and relies on

the opinions of its experts. (Jarvis Decl., ¶ i(i) (espousing legal opinion that they

do not appear to be substantially related without citation to evidence); Tuft Decl.,

¶¶ 12, 13, 19 (not discussing substantial relationship test or stating that such a

test does not apply to these facts because no attorney-client relationship

present).) 

6. Should the Court apply California or Washington law to resolve the issue of

disqualification? 

7. Under what circumstances would an evidentiary hearing on this motion be

appropriate?

8. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 159 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3