Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00117-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OPTISTREAMS, INC., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

SEAN GAHAN, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-117 REC/SMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

SAGASER, JONES & HAHESY

On August 1, 2005, the court heard plaintiff Optistreams,

Inc.'s motion to disqualify the law firm of Sagaser, Jones &

Hahesy from further representation of Sean Gahan in this

litigation.

Upon due consideration of the record and the arguments of

the parties, the court denies this motion for the reasons set

forth herein.

On December 22, 2004, Optistreams, Inc., then represented by

Jory, Peterson, Watkins, Ross & Woolman (hereinafter Jory,

Peterson), filed a Complaint in the Fresno County Superior Court

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 18
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

2

against Sean Gahan and Does 1-26, alleging causes of action for

defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, trespass to chattel,

computer tampering in violation of California Penal Code § 502

and 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and conversion. The action was removed to

this court on January 25, 2005. Gahan is represented by Howard

Sagaser and Melody Hawkins of Sagaser, Jones & Hahesy

(hereinafter referred to as Sagaser, Jones).

Optistreams has moved to disqualify Sagaser, Jones from

continued representation of Gahan in this litigation on the

ground that a conflict of interest has arisen because of Sagaser,

Jones’ hiring of legal secretary Dawn Peel, who was employed by

Jory, Peterson from March 27, 2000 until June 2, 2005. Ms. Peel

was legal secretary to Patti L. Williams, who was counsel of

record for Optistreams in this litigation until July 26, 2005,

when David Roberts and Brian Cuttone of Caswell, Bell & Hillison

were substituted as counsel of record for Optistreams. While

employed at Jory, Peterson, Ms. Peel also was legal secretary to

Jason Parkin, counsel of record for Optistreams in ongoing

litigation in state court. Optistreams contends that Ms. Peel

has knowledge of confidential information regarding Optistreams

and specific attorney-client communications regarding this

litigation. Optistreams notes that Sagaser, Jones did not obtain

a waiver of this conflict of interest from Optistreams prior to

hiring Ms. Peel and contends that Sagaser, Jones did not erect an

“ethical wall” prior to hiring Ms. Peel.

The standard for resolving a motion to disqualify a law firm

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 18
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

3

who hires a nonlawyer employee with a conflict of interest is set

forth in In re Complex Asbestos Litigation, 232 Cal.App.3d 572,

596 (1991):

Absent written consent, the proper rule and

its application for disqualification based on

nonlawyer employee conflicts of interest

should be as follows. The party seeking

disqualification must show that its present

or past attorney’s former employee possesses

confidential attorney-client information

materially related to the proceedings before

the court. The party should not be required

to disclose the actual information contended

to be confidential. However, the court

should be provided with the nature of the

information and its material relationship to

the proceeding ....

Once this showing has been made, a rebuttable

presumption arises that the information has

been used or disclosed in the current

employment. The presumption is a rule of

necessity because the party seeking

disqualification will be at a loss to prove

what is known by the adversary’s attorneys

and legal staff ... To rebut the presumption,

the challenged attorney has the burden of

showing that the practical effect of formal

screening has been achieved. The showing

must satisfy the trial court that the

employee has not and will not have any

involvement with the litigation, or any

communication with attorneys or coemployees

concerning the litigation, that would support

a reasonable inference that the information

has been used or disclosed. If the

challenged attorney fails to make this

showing, then the court may disqualify the

attorney and law firm.

The Court of Appeal also stated:

The most likely means of rebutting the

presumption is to implement a procedure,

before the employee is hired, which

effectively screens the employee from any

involvement in the litigation, a procedure

one court aptly described as a ‘”cone of

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 3 of 18
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

4

silence”’ ... Whether a potential will

require a cone of silence should be

determined as a matter of routine during the

hiring process. It is reasonable to ask

potential employees about the nature of their

prior legal work: prudence alone would

dictate such inquiries ....

The leading treatise on legal malpractice

also discusses screening procedures and case

law. (1 Mallen & Smith, Legal Malpractice

(3 Ed. 1989) §§ 13.18-13.19, pp. 792-797.) rd

We find several points to be persuasive when

adapted to the context of employee conflicts. 

‘Screening is a prophylactic, affirmative

measure to avoid both the reality and

appearance of impropriety. It is a means,

but not the means, of rebutting the

presumption of shared confidences.’ ... Two

objectives must be achieved. First,

screening should be implemented before

undertaking the challenged representation or

hiring the tainted individual. Screening

must take place at the outset to prevent any

confidences from being disclosed. Second,

the tainted individual should be precluded

from any involvement in or communication

about the challenged representation. To

avoid inadvertent disclosures and to

establish an evidentiary record, a memorandum

should be circulated warning the legal staff

to isolate the individual from communications

on the matter and to prevent access to the

relevant files ....

The need for such a rule is manifest. We

agree with the observations made by the

Williams court: ‘[Nonlawyer] personnel are

widely used by lawyers to assist in rendering

legal services. Paralegals, investigators,

and secretaries must have ready access to

client confidences in order to assist their

attorney employers. If information provided

by a client in confidence to an attorney for

the purpose of obtaining legal advice could

be used against the client because a member

of the attorney’s [nonlawyer] support staff

left the attorney’s employment, it would have

a devastating effect both on the free flow of

information between client and attorney and

on the cost and quality of the legal services

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 4 of 18
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

5

rendered by the attorney.’ ... Further, no

regulatory or ethical rules comparable to

those governing attorneys, restrain all of

the many types of nonlawyer employees of

attorneys. The restraint on such employees’

disclosing confidential attorney-client

information must be the employing attorney’s

admonishment against revealing the

information.

232 Cal.App.3d at 593-594. 

A. Possession of Confidential Information Materially

Related to the Proceeding Before the Court.

Optistreams contends that Ms. Peel possesses confidential

information materially related to this action. 

In so asserting, Optistreams relies on the Declaration of

Patti Williams, a shareholder in Jory, Peterson, who avers that

Ms. Peel was employed by Jory, Peterson as a legal secretary from

March 27, 2000 and that Ms. Peel was her secretary during the

entire time of her employment with Jory, Peterson. Ms. Williams

avers that, since October 2003, Jory, Peterson has employed two

legal secretaries, Ms. Peel and Beth Noel; that the two

secretaries shared a common work area, are close friends, and

often helped each other out. Ms. Neal is Mr. Woolman’s secretary

and Mr. Woolman has been the lead attorney on several cases

involving Optistreams, including a case against several former

employees who formed a competing company, Optistreams v. NIA, a

case currently pending in the Fresno County Superior Court. Mr.

Parkin is an associate attorney with Jory, Peterson who has been

assigned to work on the Optistreams v. NIA case. Ms. Peel was

Mr. Parkins legal secretary from October 2004 and has assisted

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 5 of 18
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

6

him in the Optistreams v. NIA case. Ms. Williams further avers

that Jory, Peterson has handled several other litigation matters

for Optistreams and has advised Optistreams regarding various

employment matters. Ms. Williams avers that she was the attorney

at Jory, Peterson primarily responsible for handling the instant

case and the attorney primarily responsible for handling an

arbitration involving Tony Coles, a former employee of

Optistreams. Ms. Williams frequently advised Optistreams on

various employment matters and represented Optistreams before the

California Labor Commissioner. Ms. Williams avers that Ms. Peel

assisted her in each of these matters. Ms. Williams further

avers in pertinent part:

8. Jory, Peterson maintains its client files

in a file room. Litigation files consist of

separate files for correspondence, client

documents, attorney notes, legal memoranda,

discovery documents, and pleadings. All

employees of the firm have access to the

files. Ms. Peel had access to all files in

the file room, including all files relating

to Optistreams.

9. Jory, Peterson has a policy with regard

to how incoming facsimile messages are

handled. The facsimiles are first taken to

the firm’s secretaries. The secretaries are

required to read the facsimile messages in

order to determine whether there are any

dates to be calendared, and to check for any

issues of immediate concern. The secretaries

then give the facsimile messages to the

attorneys. Therefore, under this policy, Ms.

Peel was responsible for reviewing every

facsimile message directed to me, including

attorney-client communications. I am certain

that Ms. Peel has reviewed attorney-client

facsimile communications from Optistreams to

me and have specific recollections of Ms.

Peel giving me such communications.

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 6 of 18
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

7

10. Jory, Peterson has a policy with regard

to how incoming mail is handled. The mail

for each attorney first goes to the

secretaries. The secretaries are required to

review the mail and read any correspondence

to determine whether there are any dates to

be calendared and to check for any issues of

immediate concern. The secretaries then

provide the mail to the attorneys. 

Therefore, under this policy, Ms. Peel is

responsible for reviewing all correspondence

sent to me, including attorney-client

communications. I am certain that Ms. Peel

has reviewed attorney-client communications

from Optistreams to me and have specific

recollections of Ms. Peel giving me such

communications.

11. Jory, Peterson utilizes a computerized

network in order to organize all documents

created within the firm. I know this because

each firm employee, including attorneys and

secretaries, has access to documents within

the network. Access does not depend upon

whether a particular attorney or secretary is

working on a particular matter. During her

employment with Jory, Peterson, Ms. Peel had

access to and did in fact access confidential

computerized records relating to this matter.

12. Jory, Peterson utilizes a software

system entitled ‘Worldox’ in order to index

and manage documents created on the firm

network. I am familiar with this system and

have utilized it on a daily basis since the

firm installed it. Under this system, each

document is assigned a number. The document

may then be accessed by all users of the

system using the document number or other

information such as the client number,

author, type of document, key terms, and so

forth. It is possible to run an ‘audit

trail’ on documents within the Worldox system

to determine which individuals have accessed,

opened, copied or printed any particular

document. On June 2, 2005 and June 8, 2005,

I performed an audit trail of confidential

attorney-client communications, consisting of

letters from William Woolman, my partner,

Shelley Bryant, my partner, and me, to

Optistreams. Attached as collective Exhibit

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 7 of 18
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

8

A are the documents generated by this

document trail as to four documents within

the firm’s computer system. I personally

printed these documents once I completed

running the audit trails. Three of the four

documents pertain to the present matter -

Optistreams v. Gahan. The fourth document

pertains to Optistreams v. NIA.

In paragraphs 13-14 of her declaration, Ms. Williams avers that

the audit trail demonstrates that Ms. Peel viewed documents

containing attorney-client information in February and March,

2004. In paragraph 15, Ms. Williams avers:

15. The third page of Exhibit A pertains to

document 537566. I prepared this document

and therefore, am familiar with its contents. 

Document number 537566 is a letter dated

March 23, 2005 from me to Ms. Alison Haugan

and Mr. Steve Genuser of Optistreams. In

this letter, I discuss the status of the case

against Mr. Gahan, including my theories,

impressions and plans regarding the case. 

This letter contains highly confidential

attorney-client communications. The audit

profile regarding this letter shows that Ms.

Peel opened the letter on May 23, 2005, which

was approximately one week after she gave

notice of her intention to join Mr. Sagaser’s

firm. 

Sagaser, Jones argue that Ms. Williams’ declaration and

supporting exhibits do not establish that Ms. Peel possessed

confidential information materially related to the instant case. 

In so asserting, Sagaser, Jones relies on the Ms. Peel’s

declaration, wherein she avers in pertinent part:

3. ... I have no recollection of reviewing,

copying or printing the documents Ms.

Williams has listed in paragraphs 13 and 14

of her declaration. However, it was routine

practice for the legal secretaries,

paralegals and attorneys at Jory, Peterson to

open documents for the specific purpose of

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 8 of 18
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

9

copying all or part of the documents

including the names and addresses of clients

or other addresses. It was common practice

for the legal secretaries to open previously

prepared pleadings and correspondence in

order to copy names and addresses from the

letters and proofs of service.

4. Although I do not specifically recall

opening the particular documents referred to

in Ms. Williams’ declaration on the dates

listed, I may have opened those documents for

the specific purpose of obtaining the correct

address for Mr. Genuser. When I opened

documents for the purpose of copying names

and addresses, I did not review the documents

but only copied the name and address and

closed the document. I have no recollection

of the content of those documents.

5. As to Ms. Williams’ statement in

paragraph 15, I do not have a specific

recollection of opening the letter to Ms.

Haugen and Mr. Genuser on May 23, 2005. 

However, Ms. Williams did instruct me to fax

and mail a letter to Howard Sagaser regarding

this case on May 23, 2005. In keeping with

Jory, Peterson’s practice, I would have sent

a copy of Ms. Williams’ May 23, 2005 letter

to Mr. Sagaser to Optistreams and I may have

opened Ms. Williams’ letter to Ms. Haugen and

Mr. Genuser to copy their names and addresses

for the envelope to mail the letter. If I

did open the letter to Mr. Haugen and Mr.

Genuser, I did not read the letter nor do I

have any recollection of its contents.

6. Additionally, it is possible someone else

at Jory, Peterson could have opened the

documents from my computer. The legal

secretaries sit in a large open area with no

partitions and no doors. The secretaries’

computers are readily accessible to anyone in

the firm. Generally, when I would come to

work at Jory, Peterson I would sign onto my

computer using my initials ‘DEP’ and I would

leave it running all day. I would also open

the windows for Word and Worldox and leave

them open all day. Since my computer was

already on and I was logged in, anyone could

have used my computer to access, review, copy

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 9 of 18
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

10

or print documents on my computer and it

would show up on the audit trail as if I had

accessed, reviewed copied or reviewed [sic]

the document. Oftentimes I was not at my

desk, as I would go in the file room to

retrieve files or use the copier and during

the lunch hour I would generally go out of

the office for lunch.

7. Regarding Jory, Peterson’s policy

regarding incoming faxes and mail, while it

was my responsibility to review the faxes and

the mail to check for dates to be calendared

and issues that had to be addressed

immediately, my review of the incoming

documents was only cursory to review for

dates or immediate issues; I did not review

the documents for content, particularly since

I had to review incoming documents for four

attorneys.

8. Similarly, when I was asked to proof

outgoing letters or pleadings that were

prepared by an attorney, I did not review for

content, but merely reviewed the documents

for grammatical errors and misspellings. 

Likewise, when I typed letters and pleadings,

I did not edit the document or analyze its

content.

9. At the time I resigned my employment as a

legal secretary at Jory, Peterson I was

working for four attorneys, three of whom

were partners. I rarely, if ever, had the

occasion to know a case on an intimate basis. 

Neither Patti Williams nor Jason Parkin ever

informed or discussed with me their

litigation strategy in any of the Optistreams

cases. At no time was my opinion asked as to

the current strategy in any Optistreams case,

nor did I have any information pertaining to

any future strategy in any Optistreams case. 

I also have no recollection or knowledge of

trade secrets or confidential information

pertaining to Optistreams or any of the

Optistreams cases. My involvement with

Optistreams and its cases was limited to

typing letters and pleadings, mailing and

filing pleadings and mailing correspondence.

In reply, Optistreams submits a further declaration from Ms.

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 10 of 18
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

11

Williams in which she avers in pertinent part:

7. ... It is true that attorneys at Jory,

Peterson do not typically consult

administrative assistants such as Ms. Peel

regarding their opinions as to case strategy;

however, Ms. Peel was well aware of the

attorneys’ opinions, impressions and strategy

regarding the Optistreams cases. I know this

because my partners William Woolman, Shelley

Bryant and I drafted letters to Optistreams

in which we expressed our opinions regarding

the case, our strategies and how we felt

about certain claims. Jory, Peterson’s

computer audit trail shows that Ms. Peel

accessed each of these letters. Also, Ms.

Peel’s job duties required her to review,

correct and format correspondence prepared by

me and attorney Jason Parkin. Ms. Peel was

required to proofread our letters for

content, syntax and grammar. It is

inevitable that when Ms. Peel reviewed, these

letters [sic] in accordance with her job

duties, Ms. Peel would have become familiar

with the content of these letters and learned

our future strategies as well as our opinions

regarding the merits of the claims at issue

in this case.

Optistreams has shown that Ms. Peel possesses confidential

information materially related to this action. Ms. Peel 

actually read the letters prepared by Optistreams’ attorneys and

accessed files and documents relevant to this litigation. That

Ms. Peel says she does not remember the content is of no moment

because these actions all happened very recently and the letters

involved the instant litigation. Her assertion that someone else

could have used her computer to access the documents is pure

speculation, especially in the absence of any averment that it

was a common practice for others at Jory, Peterson to use her

computer for this purpose.

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 11 of 18
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

12

Consequently, the court concludes that Optistreams has made

a sufficient showing to invoke the rebuttable presumption that

confidential information regarding this case has been used by or

disclosed to Sagaser, Jones. Therefore, the burden shifts to

Sagaser, Jones to rebut the presumption. 

B. Formal Screening.

Sagaser, Jones argues that they have rebutted the

presumption.

In so asserting, when Ms. Williams wrote to Mr. Sagaser by

letter dated May 23, 2005 requesting that Sagaser, Jones recuse

itself from the instant litigation because Ms. Peel had been

hired by Sagaser, Jones, Mr. Sagaser responded by letter to Ms.

Williams dated May 24, 2005:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 23,

2005, in which you request this office to

voluntarily recuse itself from representing

Sean Gahan in the litigation Optistreams had

initiated against Mr. Gahan. By this letter,

I wish to inform you that Dawn Peel contacted

our office about possible employment. Our

office did not initiate the contact. 

Moreover, Ms. Peel is scheduled to work for

attorneys who have had no involvement in the

Optistreams v. Gahan litigation. Our office

will be constructing a privacy wall around

Ms. Peel and she will not be allowed to work

on the Optistreams v. Gahan matter, even

though she was not an attorney or paralegal

in your office and will not be an attorney or

paralegal in our office.

Mr. Sagaser sent a letter to Ms. Peel dated May 24, 2005, in

which he stated:

Recently, Patti Williams has objected to our

firm representing Sean Gahan with respect to

a lawsuit that was filed by Optistreams

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 12 of 18
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

13

against Mr. Gahan. I am the attorney who is

representing Sean Gahan, and Patti Williams

and Jason Parkin have been representing

Optistreams in the litigation. By this

letter, I wish to inform you that prior to or

upon your employment with our firm on June 6,

2005, you are not to divulge to anyone in our

firm any information regarding Optistreams,

much less anything involving the case filed

by Optistreams against Sean Gahan. At no

time are you to access the Optistreams v.

Sean Gahan file in our office and no attorney

who you are assigned to work for will be

allowed to work on the file. This is

commonly known as a ‘privacy wall.’

Presently, the only active litigation of

which I am aware involving Jory, Peterson ...

and our firm is the Optistreams v. Gahan

matter. However, if you are aware of any

other matters in which the two firms are

opposing counsel, I would appreciate your

bringing it to my attention so I can insure

that the proper privacy wall and security

arrangements are in place.

If you have any question concerning any of

the issues set forth in this letter, please

feel free to give me a call.

Mr. Sagaser’s letter to Ms. Peel was copied to Ms. Williams and

Mr. Woolman. Mr. Sagaser further avers in his declaration in

opposition to this motion:

15. Sometime in May, 2005, Dawn Peel

contacted one of the attorneys in our office

for whom she used to work, Michael Helsley. 

Ms. Peel inquired about the possibility of

employment at our firm. In response to Ms.

Peel’s inquiry, our firm extended an offer

for her to come to work for our firm as the

legal secretary for Michael Helsley and K.

Pancho Baker. Neither Mr. Baker nor Mr.

Helsley has been involved in the Gahan v.

Optistreams [sic] litigation, nor has this

case been the subject of discussion at any

attorney meetings. Sometime in May of 2005,

it was agreed between Mr. Helsley and Ms.

Peel that she would start employment at our

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 13 of 18
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

14

firm on June 6, 2005. The only individuals

involved in hiring Peel were Mr. Helsley, Mr.

Baker, and the Sagaser Firm Administrator

Lynn Hoffman. I was not involved in the

hiring of Dawn Peel.

...

19. Prior to Ms. Peel starting her

employment at our office, we had our computer

system modified to block her from any access

to the Optistreams v. Gahan computer files. 

Only those attorneys who are actively working

on the Optistreams case and their legal

assistants are allowed access to the computer

files for the Optistreams v. Gahan

litigation. As stated previously, the

attorneys for whom Ms. Peel works at our firm

have never and do not currently work on the

Optistreams case and are not allowed to work

on the Optistreams case.

20. Additionally, the Optistreams v. Gahan

files have been removed from our central file

room and are kept in a separate room that is

locked and only attorney Melody Hawkins, my

law clerk Tracie Goodwin, paralegal Gina

Klein, my secretary Elaine Devlin and me, and

our file room personnel who have access to

the files.

Mr. Sagaser further avers that he sent an e-mail to everyone at

Sagaser, Jones on June 2, 2005, which e-mail states:

Re: Issues Concerning Optistreams v. Gahan -

6489-002

As everyone is aware, Dawn Peel will be

joining our firm on June 6, 2005. The

attorneys for Optistreams, which are

represented by the law firm where Dawn is

currently working are objecting to my

continued representation of Sean Gahan. 

Enclosed please find a copy of the letter

that I sent Dawn Peel on May 24, 2005. I

wanted to make certain that everyone was

aware of this situation as we have

constructed a privacy wall and under no

circumstances is anyone to discuss the

Optistreams, Inc. v. Sean Gahan matter with

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 14 of 18
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

15

Dawn Peel. Presently the only two attorneys

who have worked on this matter are myself and

Melody. Enclosed please find a copy of the

letter that I received today informing me

that Optistreams intends to file a motion to

disqualify this firm. Therefore, it is

essential that everyone abide by the privacy

wall that we are constructing and your

assistance in insuring that no one discusses

the Optistreams v. Gahan matter with Dawn

Peel is mandated.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free

to give me a call.

Ms. Peel also avers in pertinent part:

10. When I resigned my employment at Jory,

Peterson, I spoke to Ms. Williams about

Optistreams. She stated that I should no

longer work on the OptiStreams v. Gahan

matter. In response, I informed her that I

no longer wanted to work on any OptiStreams

matter, including the OptiStreams v. NIA

case. She agreed. From that point forward,

if a file clerk of receptionist handed me any

mail or faxes on any OptiStream matter,

without reading it, I would immediately hand

the document to the other secretary in the

office, Beth Noel, and she would handle it.

11. After I had given my notice to resign

and after Ms. Williams had agreed that I

should not work on any OptiStreams cases, on

May 23, 2005, she handed me a letter to Mr.

Sagaser dated May 23, 2005 regarding this

case. It was already prepared in final form. 

She asked me to fax it to Mr. Sagaser’s

office. Ms. Williams told me that I would be

unhappy with the content of the letter, but I

needed to fax it to him anyway, as it was

‘nothing personal’ against me.

12. There was another occasion after May 23,

2005, when Ms. Williams asked me to fax a

document in the OptiStreams v. Gahan matter,

as the other secretary was not in the office

that day. I refused to do so, and asked her

to give it to the paralegal, Lela Mulligan,

to handle. It should be noted that faxing

documents from Jory, Peterson’s fax machine

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 15 of 18
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

16

is relatively simple. It is not clear why

Ms. Williams asked me to fax the document

when she had previously told me I was not to

work on the OptiStreams v. Gahan case.

13. To my knowledge, Jory, Peterson did not

put up a ‘firewall’ after I gave my notice. 

To my knowledge, the OptiStreams’ files were

not removed from the general filing area and

they did not put a block on my computer

access. Jory, Peterson informed one of the

many receptionists not to give me mail or

faxes pertaining to OptiStreams v. Gahan, but

the others continued to do so. I would not

review any mail or faxes pertaining to any

Optistreams matter that were given to me, but

would immediately hand them to the other

secretary without reviewing or reading them. 

...

17. Since my employment at Sagaser, Jones

..., I have had no contact whatsoever with

any matter pertaining to OptiStreams, other

than having to respond to the allegations set

forth in the declarations of Jason Parkin and

Patti Williams in this case.

Optistreams argues that Sagaser, Jones has not rebutted the

presumption because Sagaser, Jones did not institute the “privacy

wall” prior to or during Ms. Peel’s initial interview for

employment. Optistreams contends that Sagaser, Jones knew or

should have known that Ms. Peel’s duties at Jory, Peterson

included being legal secretary to one of the attorneys

representing Optistreams in Optistreams v. Gahan.

However, the record in this matter establishes that the

attorneys at Sagaser, Jones approached by Ms. Peel for employment

and who interviewed her had and have no involvement in

Optistreams v. Gahan. Mr. Sagaser had no involvement in the

decision to hire Ms. Peel. The better practice would have been

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 16 of 18
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

17

for Mr. Helsley, Mr. Baker, Ms. Hoffman to ascertain from Ms.

Peel at the time of her interview by them whether she had

performed any secretarial tasks for attorneys at Jory, Peterson

on cases in which attorneys for Sagaser, Jones were opposing

counsel. However, under the circumstances before the court, the

failure to make this inquiry does not negate the effectiveness of

the steps taken by Sagaser, Jones to erect the privacy wall

before Ms. Peel ceased working for Jory, Peterson and commenced

working for Sagaser, Jones. The showing made by Sagaser, Jones

demonstrates to the court’s satisfaction that Ms. Peel has not

and will not have any involvement with this litigation while

employed at Sagaser, Jones, or any communication with attorneys

or coemployees at Sagaser, Jones concerning this litigation that

would support an inference that the confidential information has

been used or disclosed. The record establishes that Mr. Sagaser

took immediate steps to prevent disclosure to Sagaser, Jones of

confidential information by Ms. Peel by warning Ms. Peel in

writing that she must not do so, preventing her from obtaining

access to any information at Sagaser, Jones concerning the case,

and specifically advising all of the members and employees of

Sagaser, Jones before Ms. Peel began work there that none of them

must discuss in any way this case with Ms. Peel. The record also

establishes that Ms. Peel was not hired to assist in this

litigation and that she was hired to assist other lawyers in the

firm who have not had and do not have any involvement in this

litigation. 

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 17 of 18
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

18

ACCORDINGLY, plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Sagaser, Jones

& Hahesy is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00117-AWI -SMS Document 39 Filed 08/09/05 Page 18 of 18