Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03332/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03332-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

M URPHY 

AUSTIN 

ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

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

680.003-291405.1

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REQUIRE COMMUNICATION THROUGH COUNSEL C-04-3332 SBA

CARY M. ADAMS, SBN 103359

GEOFFREY A. GOODMAN, SBN 073355

RANDALL J. HAKES, SBN 233548

MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP

1000 G Street, Third Floor (95814)

Post Office Box 1319

Sacramento, California 95812-1319

Telephone: (916) 446-2300

Facsimile: (916) 503-4000

Email: cadams@murphyaustin.com

Email: ggoodman@murphyaustin.com

Email: rhakes@murphyaustin.com

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants

THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND THE COUNTY 

OF TUOLUMNE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL 

SERVICES, INC., a California 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MARIN, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C-04-3332 SBA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS, 

COUNTERDEFENDANTS AND THEIR 

COUNSEL TO COMMUNICATE 

THROUGH COUNSEL

Date: October 18, 2005

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Judge: Armstrong/Courtroom 

COUNTY OF MARIN, a legal subdivision 

of the State of California; COUNTY OF 

TUOLUMNE, a legal subdivision of the 

State of California,

Counterclaimants,

v.

GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL 

SERVICES, INC., a California 

corporation, and DIANE GLADWELL, in 

her individual capacity,

Counterdefendants.

 

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 56 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 3
M URPHY 

AUSTIN 

ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

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 - 680.003-291405.1

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REQUIRE COMMUNICATION THROUGH COUNSEL C-04-3332 SBA

This matter comes to the Court on Defendants and counterclaimaints ("Defendants") the 

County of Marin and the County of Tuolumne’s motion to prohibit Plaintiff and 

Counterdefendants, Gladwell Government Services, Inc. and Diane Gladwell, and their counsel 

Kevin Hughes, from contacting Defendants except through their counsel Murphy Austin Adams 

Schoenfeld LLP. Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in their 

moving papers, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without a hearing. The 

Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

I. DISCUSSION

After the Court ruling in favor of Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for 

copyright infringement, Plaintiff and counterdefendant GGS and Diane Gladwell wrote to the 

Chief Administrative Officer of Marin and Tuolumne asking that the counties consider dropping 

the litigation. Thereafter, their counsel, Kevin Hughes phoned the offices of individual members 

of the Board of Supervisors of each County, (Declaration of Susannah Clark in Support of 

Motion) and followed up his calls with a letter to each board member with an offer to settle the 

matter. Ms. Gladwell also continued to write to Board members. Declaration of Cary M. Adams 

in Support of Motion. Defendants request the Court to prohibit this direct contact, contending it 

is improper and disruptive of its relationship with its counsel.

The Court has broad authority to “enter appropriate orders governing counsel and the 

parties.” Haffer v. Temple University, 115 F.R.D. 506, 512, (E.D. Pa. 1987), citing Gulf Oil v 

Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100 (1981) (imposing sanctions for inappropriate contact with class 

members and prohibiting future inappropriate contact). Generally a party may contact an 

opposing party, but counsel may not directly contact a represented party. ABA Model Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 4.2. 

California Rules of Professional Conduct is in accord, but exempts communications by 

counsel "with a public officer, board, committee, or body.” Rule 2-100; Formal Opinion 

No. 1977-43 of the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility of the State Bar of 

California. 

Defendants contend that this exemption was designed to protect the constitutional right of 

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 56 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 3
M URPHY 

AUSTIN 

ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

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 - 680.003-291405.1

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REQUIRE COMMUNICATION THROUGH COUNSEL C-04-3332 SBA

citizens to petition their government, and that it was not designed to permit counsel to contact 

represented parties in an attempt to circumvent counsel, or otherwise undermine a public entity's 

confidence in its counsel. Moreover, Defendants' note that contacting individual Board members 

may threaten the unintended disclosure of privileged material and cause unintended violations of 

California's open meeting law known as the Brown Act. 

The Court will grant Defendants' motion. The Court finds no basis for communicating 

directly with represented parties in this matter. The Court finds that some of the direct 

communications by Ms. Gladwell and her counsel have been misleading and apparently intended 

to undermine a lack of confidence in Defendants' outside counsel. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants motion. Consequently, during 

the pendency of this litigation, Gladwell Government Services, Diane Gladwell and their 

counsel, Kevin Hughes, or any agents acting on their behalf, are prohibited from contacting 

representatives of Defendants Marin and Tuolumne Counties, except through their counsel of 

record in this action, Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP. 

DENIED.

Dated: October 15, 2005

SANDRA B. ARMSTRONG

JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 56 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 3