Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04156/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04156-15/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AI-DAIWA, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPARENT, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04156-VC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 113

AI-Daiwa and Apparent are embroiled in what is primarily a contract dispute about 

products that AI-Daiwa delivered to Apparent. Everyone seems to agree the products were 

defective; the question is whether they were defective because of the design specifications 

provided by Apparent, or because of a failure by AI-Daiwa to meet those specifications.

Apparent is represented in this litigation by Jaqueline deSouza. She is a corporate officer 

of Apparent, was involved in contract negotiations with AI-Daiwa, and was involved in 

negotiations with AI-Daiwa about how to resolve the dispute about the defective products. There 

is little doubt deSouza will be a necessary witness at trial; indeed, in motion practice she has 

already submitted her own testimony about what happened in this case. Apparent was previously 

represented by co-counsel (the law firm of Parton Sell Rhoades), but co-counsel has withdrawn, 

raising the prospect that deSouza will serve as sole counsel at trial. AI-Daiwa has moved to 

disqualify her on the ground that she will be required to give testimony at trial and therefore 

should not be acting as trial counsel. 

After holding a hearing and after reviewing the papers filed by the parties, including the 

supplemental briefs filed the day after the hearing, the Court grants in part the motion to disqualify 

deSouza. However, after reviewing the supplemental briefs, the terms of the disqualification 

Case 3:13-cv-04156-VC Document 123 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

differ somewhat from the tentative ruling the Court articulated from the bench.

It is plainly a problem for deSouza to serve as trial counsel for Apparent given her likely 

testimony and her overall involvement in the contract dispute. See Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct 

R. 3.7; see also Kennedy v. Eldridge, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1197, 1209 (affirming trial court's 

disqualification of attorney because "it is a virtual certainty that his testimony as a witness . . . will 

be necessary"). On the other hand, deSouza's outright disqualification would have a significant

adverse impact on Apparent, because her work thus far would be a sunk cost for Apparent, and a 

new lawyer would need to get up to speed on complicated technical matters (that will be the 

subject of expert testimony) relating to the cause of the product defects. Given these competing 

concerns, as the Court explained at the hearing, the ideal solution would be to find a way to allow 

deSouza to continue representing Apparent through trial while minimizing the risk that her 

personal involvement in the dispute would infect the trial process. Accordingly, the Court 

proposed the following solution at the hearing: deSouza would not be disqualified, but Apparent 

would be required to hire co-counsel for purposes of the trial only. Co-counsel would obviously 

handle deSouza's testimony, and likely would also be required to handle the testimony of any 

other witnesses who would testify about matters in which deSouza was personally involved (for 

example, deSouza would not be allowed to cross-examine witnesses about conversations in which 

she participated). This proposal would leave deSouza free to give the opening statement and the 

closing argument (so long as she didn't inject her own testimony into those phases of the trial), and 

to handle any witnesses who would testify about matters in which deSouza was not personally 

involved. This includes handling the testimony of expert witnesses, who will likely be the most 

important witnesses in the case given the primary question presented, and whose examinations and 

cross-examinations require the most preparation. Under this proposed approach, the parties would

confer before the pretrial conference about which witnesses deSouza could handle at trial, and any 

dispute would be resolved by the Court at the pretrial conference.

At the hearing, counsel for AI-Daiwa did not object to this approach. But deSouza, on 

behalf of Apparent, raised a number of objections, based primarily on a concern that requiring 

Apparent to have two lawyers at trial would hinder the effectiveness of Apparent's trial 

Case 3:13-cv-04156-VC Document 123 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

presentation. Most of these objections do not merit a response. One legitimate concern, however,

was that the pretrial conference is scheduled to take place two weeks before trial, and if there are 

disputes about which witnesses deSouza should be allowed to handle, it would be difficult for 

Apparent's lawyers to wait until the pretrial conference to get that resolved. In light of this 

concern, the Court stated it would hold the pretrial conference a full month before the start of the 

trial. 

Notwithstanding this, deSouza (on behalf of Apparent) stated that she refused to adhere to 

this approach. Accordingly, the Court has no choice but to grant the motion to disqualify her. 

However, after reviewing the supplemental briefs, the Court has determined that the 

disqualification will only be partial. First, deSouza is not disqualified from continuing to 

participate in pretrial litigation, including the pretrial conference. Accordingly, the case 

management dates that were in place before the hearing on the motion to disqualify remain in 

place, and the parties must proceed accordingly. Second, deSouza will only be disqualified from 

representing Apparent at trial if Apparent continues to refuse to have a second lawyer at trial to 

handle the witnesses who will testify to matters in which deSouza was personally involved. If 

Apparent decides to bring on a second lawyer to handle those witnesses, and if Apparent agrees 

that its lawyers will confer with opposing counsel before the pretrial conference in an attempt to 

identify the witnesses deSouza should not handle (so that if there is any dispute the Court may 

resolve it at the pretrial conference), deSouza will only be disqualified from handling those 

witnesses at trial. But if Apparent refuses to bring in a second lawyer to ensure the integrity of the 

trial process, deSouza will be fully disqualified from representing Apparent at trial.1

The trial date is continued 14 days, to November 2, 2015, so that there will be a full four 

weeks between the pretrial conference and the start of trial.

Apparent has ample notice that deSouza will be fully disqualified from participating in the 

trial if it does not bring in a second lawyer. Therefore, if Apparent does not bring in a second 

 

1

If it becomes clear at the pretrial conference that deSouza's testimony is unnecessary, the Court 

will lift the disqualification order. However, AI-Daiwa has made a strong showing in this motion 

that deSouza's testimony will be necessary, and deSouza has not submitted adequate evidence or 

explanation to rebut that showing. 

Case 3:13-cv-04156-VC Document 123 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

lawyer and if deSouza is fully disqualified, that will not be a basis for continuing the trial date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04156-VC Document 123 Filed 04/10/15 Page 4 of 4