Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01419/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01419-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LAURIE MILLER, BRIAN DIMAS, )

KIM MILLS, ANTHONY SOZA, )

BRUCE CAMPBELL, KELLIE ) 2:13-cv-1419 JWS

BOWERS, TIM HUNTER, BRIAN )

SAYLOR, MICHAEL SCHAMADAN, )

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) ORDER AND OPINION

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE )

OF HIS WIFE, BRANDI SCHAMADAN, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) [Re: Motion at Docket 278]

)

vs. )

)

YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP and )

FRANK GATES SERVICE COMPANY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 278 defendants move to disqualify two lawyers, Thomas Whitley and

Roger Schwartz of the law firm Taylor and Associates, from representing plaintiffs in

this lawsuit. Plaintiffs, who are also represented by two additional lawyers, Michael

Patrick Doyle and Kevin Wein of the law firm Doyle Raizner LLP, oppose the motion at

docket 322. Defendants reply at docket 340. Oral argument was not requested and

would not assist the court.

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 382 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 3
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

II. BACKGROUND

The parties are familiar with the background giving rise to the case at bar, and

that background has been described in earlier orders issued by the court. There is no

need to repeat it in this order. For purposes of the present motion to disqualify, the

following additional facts may be noted. When this case was commenced on July 15,

2013, plaintiffs were represented by lawyers Doyle and Wein.1 Lawyers Schwartz and

Whitley appeared as counsel for plaintiffs nearly a year later on June 25, 2014.2

 The

next day defendants noticed the depositions of both Schwartz and Whitley.

3

 The

docket does not contain any document filed on behalf of plaintiffs which was signed by

either Schwartz or Whitley. However, Schwartz and Whitley did represent nine of the

plaintiffs in the proceedings before the Industrial Commission of Arizona (“ICA”) with

which the case at bar is concerned, and they continue to represent three of the plaintiffs

in matters still on-going before the ICA.

III. DISCUSSION

The gravamen of defendants concern is captured in the following passage:

“Mr. Whitley’s and Mr. Schwartz’s association as co-counsel in this case, at such a late

date, allows Mr. Whitley and Mr. Schwartz access to work product and trial preparation

documents that York has disclosed in this case but has not–and is not–disclosing in the

ICA litigation of Plaintiffs Saylor, Hunter and Mills which is still ongoing.”4 Defendants

also complain that, “Mr. Whitley and Mr. Schwartz have appeared in this case as

1See, Complaint at doc. 1.

2Docs. 202 and 203.

3Docs. 211 and 213.

4Doc. 278 at 2. Defendants also point out that if the court grants plaintiffs’ request to

compel disclosure of materials defendants consider privileged, that information would also fall

into the hands of Messrs. Schwartz and Whitley. This is not a separate argument, it merely

adds to the consequences of the document access Schwartz and Whitley would have as cocounsel.

-2-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 382 Filed 09/03/14 Page 2 of 3
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

counsel conveniently after York requested their depositions in this case, they now

object to York taking their depositions.”5

Turning to the second argument first, the court finds that it has no merit for two

reasons. First, as noted in the preceding section, Schwartz and Whitley appeared

before, not after, their depositions were noticed. Second, plaintiffs point out that

Whitley and Schwartz will not be counsel at trial for plaintiffs. Indeed, Whitley and

Schwartz are not even preparing documents for filing by plaintiffs. The court will rely

upon and enforce the representation that Whitley and Schwartz may not appear at trial. 

It follows, as plaintiffs correctly point out, that Schwartz and Whitley can therefor testify

at deposition regarding anything save privileged communications. The court relies on

this representation and will require that Schwartz and Whitley appear for deposition

upon proper notice from defendants.

The first argument overlooks the fact that all of the confidential information which

Schwartz and Whitley may see which is of concern to defendants is subject to a

protective order which expressly limits the use of confidential information to the case at

bar. Use of confidential information in another proceeding would violate the protective

order.6 Thus, assuming defendants have standing to make the motion to disqualify,

their first and primary argument lacks merit.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the motion at docket 278 is DENIED.

DATED this 3rd day of September 2014.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5Doc. 278 at 3.

6The order at docket 97 adopted the interim protective order at docket 82 as the final

protective order. Paragraph 10 of docket 82 limits use to this case only. See also Exhibit A to

docket 82, which is the acknowledgment Schwartz and Whitley are obligated to sign.

-3-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 382 Filed 09/03/14 Page 3 of 3