1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23251-BLOOM/LOUIS

STONE TECHOLOGY (HK)

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

GLOBAL GEEKS, INC.,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Global Geeks Inc.’s 

(“Global”) Expedited Motion to Disqualify James Liu, Esq. as Trial Counsel in this Case (“Motion to 

Disqualify”) (ECF No. 173). This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Beth

Bloom, United States District Judge (ECF No. 135). A hearing was conducted on September 20, 

2021. Having considered the Motion, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Stone Technology’s (“Stone”)

Response (ECF No. 182), Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 183), and the arguments raised at the 

hearing, Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify is DENIED.

Motions involving the disqualification of counsel must be determined according to the

standards imposed by the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Etkin & Co. v. SBD LLC, No. 

11-21321-CIV, 2012 WL 5398966, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2012) (citations omitted). 

“Disqualification of one’s chosen counsel is a drastic remedy that should be resorted to sparingly.” 

Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 1310 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (citing 

Norton v. Tallahassee Mem’l Hosp., 689 F.2d 938, 941 n.4 (11th Cir.1982)).

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2021 Page 1 of 3
2

Rule 4-3.7 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct mandates disqualification of an 

attorney who serves as both counsel and a necessary witness in the same action with few 

exceptions. Fla. Bar Reg. R. 4-3.7. “The party seeking to disqualify the counsel of his opponent 

has the burden to prove that the attorney’s testimony is necessary.” Silvers v. Google Inc., 05 80387 

CIV RYSKAMP, 2007 WL 141153, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2007). 

In his Motion to Disqualify, Defendant seeks the disqualification of counsel for Plaintiff, 

James Liu, Esq. (“Mr. Liu”), claiming Mr. Liu cannot act as both Plaintiff’s advocate at trial and 

a necessary witness. Plaintiff counters that Mr. Liu is not a necessary witness and would only be 

testifying regarding a March 30, 2020 email from the Chief Executive Officer of Global Geeks. 

Plaintiff has since withdrawn its intention to rely on Mr. Liu for trial testimony. Notwithstanding, 

Defendant’s Reply advances several areas of examination it avers will necessitate Mr. Liu’s 

testimony. 

This is the second opportunity the undersigned has had to consider a challenge to Mr. Liu 

as trial counsel for Plaintiff based on the potential that he may be required to testify at trial. In 

recommending that Defendant’s first challenge be denied, I noted that Defendant’s challenge was 

then predicated on the potential that Plaintiff would rely on Mr. Liu’s testimony, without clear 

indication that he was in fact a necessary witness. ECF No. 141 (adopted by ECF No. 159). As 

noted at that first hearing, the extent to which either Party would seek to rely on Mr. Liu to testify 

about any issue in dispute depended, at least in part, on what material issues would remain to be 

decided at trial after resolution of the pending motions for summary judgment. Since that time, I 

have had significant opportunity to evaluate the Parties’ respective claims, defenses, and evidence 

in the context of preparing a Report and Recommendation on those summary judgment motions, 

and as a result, have a vastly improved understanding of what possible testimony Mr. Liu might 

be able to offer.

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2021 Page 2 of 3
3

At the September 20, 2021 hearing defense counsel could not articulate any testimony from 

Mr. Liu necessary to either Parties’ claims or defenses. With respect to the areas of testimony 

identified in its Reply, defense counsel could not deny that if Plaintiff attempted to elicit any 

testimony through Mr. Liu about, for example, the Parties’ negotiations over unexecuted 

agreements, defense counsel would contest the admissibility of the testimony, particularly on 

relevancy grounds. Unable to meet its burden to show Mr. Liu’s testimony is expected, much less 

necessary, Defendant has failed to carry its burden on this Motion seeking his disqualification as 

trial counsel. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify (ECF No. 173) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 20th day of September, 2021.

________________________________

LAUREN F. LOUIS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2021 Page 3 of 3