Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03114/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03114-12/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

INTERIM ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C 04-03114 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 8/1/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ISMART INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

I-DOCSECURE, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company; E-NETSECURE

SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation;

INTEGRITY DATA APPLICATIONS

CONSULTING, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company; ISMART SECURE, LLC,

a Delaware Limited Liability Company;

JOSEPH BAGGIO, an individual;

JONATHAN BALZORA, an individual,

Defendants.

No. C 04-03114 RMW

INTERIM ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

[Re Docket Nos. 221, 238, 246]

Plaintiff iSmart International, Ltd. ("iSmart") moves to disqualify attorneys from the law

firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP as counsel for certain defendants: I-Docsecure LLC;

E-Netsecure Services, Inc.; iSmart Secure LLC; and Joseph Baggio ("defendants," for the purposes

of this order). As noted at the hearing on the motion, the evidence presented on the matter so far is

limited. While the burden of proof on this motion is iSmart's, a denial of the motion will not

necessarily allow attorneys from Paul Hastings to continue representing the defendants should future

developments reveal a conflict. The court would prefer to have all the available information before

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 248 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 For example, although not among the excerpts from Zoom Developers' website submitted by

defendants, the "Management" section of Zoom Developers' website lists its board of directors as

"Vijay Choudhary," "B.L. Kejriwal," "D. N. Bakhai," "Yashpal Sahni," and "Pradeep Saxena." See

http://zoomdevelopers.com/management.htm. Some of these individuals are also on iSmart's

board. See Coddon Decl., Ex. B. This suggests there may be other information available germane

to the resolution of iSmart's motion that has not been presented to the court.

2

 Statements made at the hearing suggested that Zoom Enterprises is another name for the Zoom

Group. The parties should clarify whether this is accurate.

3

 According Bhuta's declaration, he is "the Vice President of Project Finance for Zoom Developers

Pvt Ltd India." Bhuta Decl. ¶ 1. 

INTERIM ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C 04-03114 RMW

JAH 2

it and avoid having to revisit the issue later. It is therefore strongly suggested that the parties

perform additional investigation and be specific about the relationships among the parties.1

The involved parties are therefore directed to file declarations supporting factual positions

advanced at the hearing that are not specifically covered by an existing declaration (if covered by

existing declaration point out the declarant and relevant page and line). The parties should address

in particular the following matters:

 • the ownership of iSmart, Zoom Developers, Zoom Enterprises, and the Zoom Group2

 (in

more detail than merely stating the same group of "promoters" owns each entity); 

 • the directors and principal officers of iSmart, Zoom Developers, Zoom Enterprises, and the

Zoom Group; 

 • R. K. Bhuta's title and duties, if any, at iSmart and each of the other parties in the case;3

 • the operational relationship between iSmart, Zoom Developers, Zoom Enterprises, and the

Zoom Group; 

 • any documentary evidence that would support claims of whether or when Blumenfeld's

representation of Zoom Developers ended, or would shed light on Blumenfeld's "business

development activity" related to Zoom Developers, or would substantiate claims that Bhuta

is working on getting "phase II" approval from the Chinese government for the Shanghai

transaction; 

 • whether a judgment against iSmart here would be collectible from Zoom Developers; and

 • which entity or entities defendants were referring to when they requested iSmart produce

documents relating to "ZOOM'S profits after tax of $7.08 million," "ZOOM'S gross 

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 248 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

INTERIM ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C 04-03114 RMW

JAH 3

income of $37.27 million," and "ZOOM'S net worth of $36.90 million," see Edelman Decl.,

Ex. D at 11-13. 

Given that the parties are holding off on taking depositions pending resolution of this motion, all

declarations should be filed by August 4, 2006 (or earlier, if possible).

DATED: 7/31/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 248 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

INTERIM ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C 04-03114 RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Joseph Kouri joseph.kouri@sdma.com

Marc A. Koonin marc.koonin@sdma.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Michael N. Edelman michaeledelman@paulhastings.com

James Hughes jah@greenstamps.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 8/1/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 248 Filed 08/01/06 Page 4 of 4