Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01296/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01296-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

1 05cv1296-B(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ABRAHAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUPER BUY TIRES INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv1296-B (NLS)

ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC

STATUS CONFERENCE; 

POSTPONING DEPOSITIONS

SCHEDULED AFTER DECEMBER 2,

2006 DISCOVERY CUT-OFF; SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

DISQUALIFICATION OF DEFENSE

COUNSEL

On November 20, 2006, the parties in the above-captioned matter submitted a joint Stipulation to

take certain depositions after the December 2, 2006 discovery completion deadline [Doc. No. 80]. The

parties agreed to depose plaintiffs Charles Abraham and James D. Gragg on December 19, 2006 and

December 20, 2006, respectively, in Los Angeles, and to take the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of defendant

Player Wire Wheels LTD’s representatives on December 7, 2006, in Youngstown, Ohio. (Stipulation ¶¶

1-3.) The Court found good cause to grant the request [Doc. No. 83], and the depositions were

scheduled as indicated above. This is the only discovery remaining to be taken in this case. 

On November 30, 2006, defense counsel submitted in camera an Ex Parte Application to

withdraw as counsel for Defendant Player Wire Wheels LTD (“PWW”) based on a claimed breakdown

in the attorney-client relationship between counsel and PWW. At the Court’s direction, defense counsel

served a redacted copy of this application [Doc. No. 86; re-filed as Doc. No. 88] on Plaintiffs’ counsel

on December 1, 2006, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.3(g)(3) . On December 4, 2006, Plaintiffs filed

an Emergency Opposition to the application, and requested an immediate status conference with the

Case 3:05-cv-01296-B-NLS Document 89 Filed 12/05/06 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

1

 At present, the firms of Vakili & Leus and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP represent all named defendants

in a co-counsel capacity. 

2 05cv1296-B(NLS)

Court due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s plans to travel on December 5, 2006 to Ohio in preparation for the 

depositions of PWW representatives scheduled to take place on Thursday, December 7th [Doc. No. 87]. 

In their Emergency Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that defense counsel’s application to withdraw from

representing PWW necessarily implies defense counsel has a conflict of interest in representing the

other six defendants in this case.1 Plaintiffs ask the Court to order defense counsel to serve them with an

un-redacted version of the ex parte application to withdraw so they can properly prepare a motion to

disqualify defense counsel from representing any and all defendants in this action. 

In light of these developments, the Court convened a telephonic status conference at

approximately 3:40 p.m. on December 4, 2006. All counsel of record participated. During the course of

the conference, the Court advised counsel that the presently scheduled depositions of plaintiffs Charles

Abraham and James D. Gragg as well as the depositions of PWW representatives must be postponed

pending the outcome of Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion to disqualify defense counsel and defense

counsel’s pending application to withdraw as counsel for PWW. The Court further advised counsel that

it had requested a written statement from an authorized representative of PWW indicating whether

PWW opposes defense counsel’s application to withdraw. That statement is to be submitted in camera

to the Court on or before December 6, 2006. The Court denied, without prejudice, the request of

Plaintiffs’ counsel for immediate service of an un-redacted copy of defense counsel’s ex parte

application to withdraw. The Court then advised counsel it would set a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’

motion to disqualify defense counsel from representing all of the named defendants. 

After considering all relevant documents currently before the Court, based on the totality of the

circumstances discussed during the telephone conference, and due to the current state of uncertainty as

to whether defense counsel will continue to represent PWW or indeed any named defendant in this case,

the Court issues the following orders:

1. The three above-referenced scheduled depositions shall be postponed pending resolution

of defense counsel’s ex parte application to withdraw and Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion

for disqualification. Once the Court has resolved these motions, counsel are expected to

reschedule the depositions for dates and times amenable to all participants. The

Case 3:05-cv-01296-B-NLS Document 89 Filed 12/05/06 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

3 05cv1296-B(NLS)

depositions shall go forward in their previously stipulated locations;

2. Plaintiffs request for immediate service of an un-redacted copy of defense counsel’s ex

parte application to withdraw as counsel for Player Wire Wheels LTD is DENIED

without prejudice. Plaintiffs may renew their request in conjunction with a properly filed

Motion for Disqualification.

3. Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Disqualification of Defense Counsel no later than

December 11, 2006. 

4. Defendants shall file their opposition to the motion for disqualification, if any, no later

than December 18, 2006;

5. Plaintiffs shall file their reply to Defendants’ opposition, if any, no later than 

December 22, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2006

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01296-B-NLS Document 89 Filed 12/05/06 Page 3 of 3