Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01214/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01214-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AZ Pool Supplies Incorporated, an Arizona 

foreign corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Saltman Enterprises Incorporated, a revoked 

Arizona corporation, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV12-1214 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff’s motion for inherent sanctions (Doc. 15) and its motion to disqualify 

counsel (Doc. 29) are denied, and Defendants’ motion to quash the deposition of defense 

counsel (Doc. 30) is granted. 

 Plaintiff’s motion for inherent sanctions is based on Defendants’ answer to the 

complaint and should have been brought, if justified at all, under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11. That rule requires that the motion be served before filing, to afford 

opposing counsel an opportunity to address charges in the motion before the Court’s time 

and resources are invoked to resolve the issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Plaintiff’s 

counsel cannot evade these requirements by appealing to the Court’s inherent power. 

Moreover, the typical remedy for statements in a pleading with which opposing counsel 

disagrees is to litigate those issues and establish the correct facts, not to fire off a motion 

for sanctions. 

 Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel constitutes a similar tactical salvo rather 

Case 2:12-cv-01214-SMM Document 33 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

than a justified motion. Plaintiff seeks to disqualify defense counsel because he 

submitted an affidavit in response to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and allegedly 

violated several ethical rules in the process, including making himself a witness in the 

litigation. To avoid the use of ethical rules for the tactical disqualification of opposing 

counsel, Arizona law provides that “[o]nly in extreme circumstances should a party to a 

lawsuit be allowed to interfere with the attorney-client relationship of his opponent.” 

Alexander v. Superior Court, 685 P.2d 1309, 1313 (Ariz. 1984). 

 The allegations in the motion to disqualify do not approach extreme 

circumstances. Defense counsel filed the affidavit because Plaintiff’s counsel had 

accused him of unethical conduct. And although Plaintiff’s counsel may disagree with 

factual assertions made in the affidavit, the proper remedy is not to seek disqualification 

of opposing counsel, but to litigate the facts and establish the truth. 

 Plaintiff’s counsel has issued a notice of deposition for defense counsel on the 

basis of defense counsel’s affidavit. Defendant’s motion to quash seeks to prevent the 

deposition. The motion will be granted and the deposition quashed. The deposition, like 

the motions discussed above, is a tactical move designed to obtain some advantage over 

opposing counsel or his client. 

 Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that the Court will not tolerate further vexatious 

litigation tactics like those displayed in his motions and the deposition notice. The 

federal courts are available to achieve the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of 

genuine disputes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Those goals cannot be achieved when parties or 

counsel engage in accusatory and vexatious litigation practice rather than focusing on the 

merits of the dispute. Plaintiff’s counsel is also admonished that he should cease tossing 

out accusations of perjury and lies as though they were mere greetings. Courtesy, 

respect, and civility are mandatory in this Court. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for inherent sanctions (Doc. 15) is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel (Doc. 29) is denied. 

Case 2:12-cv-01214-SMM Document 33 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

 3. Defendants’ motion to quash (Doc. 30) is granted. 

 Dated this 28th day of September, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01214-SMM Document 33 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 3