_________________i_____________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI-DADE DIVISION

STONE TECHNOLOGY (HK) CO., LTD.,

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB 

Plaintiff,

v 

GLOBAL GEEKS, INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________________

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF GLOBALGEEKS, INC.’S EXPEDITED 

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JIANYIN LIU, ESQ. AS TRIAL COUNSEL FOR SONE 

TECHNOLOGY (HK) CO., LTD. IN THIS MATTER 

Glen M. Lindsay, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 59200

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

312 SE 17th Street

2nd Floor

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316

Tel.: (954) 767-6333

Fax: (954) 767-8111

Email: glindsay@saavlaw.com 

Service Email: eservice@saavlaw.com

Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq.*

BONI, ZACK & SNYDER 

15 St. Asaphs Rd.

Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

Tel: 610.822.0200

Email: beichel@bonizack.com

*Admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for GlobalGeeks, Inc.

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 1 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________ii________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

_________________________________________________________ ________ PAGE______

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................iv

I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND.....................................................................2

A. Mr. Liu’s Involvement in Case.............................................................2

B. GlobalGeeks Motion to Appoint Second Chair Counsel................................2

C. Stone Now Intends to Call Mr. Liu as a Witness to Testify on 

Substantive and Contested Issues...................................................................4

III. ARGUMENT..........................................................................................5

A. Rule 4-3.7 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct is 

Designed to Prevent Prejudice to Both Parties.....................................................5

B. Mr. Liu is a Necessary Witness............................................................6

C. Mr. Liu’s Testimony Will Address Contested Issues...................................8

1. The March 30, 2020 email from Ahmad Loul..................................8

2. The Revisions and Negotiation of an Unexecuted April 24, 2020 

Agreement.....................................................................................9

3. The Negotiation of a June 8, 2020 Agreement that the Parties 

Never Signed................................................................................11

D. Mr. Liu’s Dual Rule as Stone’s Advocate and as Stone’s Necessary 

Fact Witness Prejudices Both Parties.............................................................11

1. Mr. Liu’s Testimony Will Prejudice Stone....................................11

2. Mr. Liu’s Testimony Will Prejudice GlobalGeeks...........................12

E. The Facts of this Case Support Disqualification Even if Stone May 

Suffer Hardship......................................................................................13

F. Other Courts Have Disqualified Trial Counsel in Similar Circumstances.........14

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 2 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________iii________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

_________________________________________________________ ________ PAGE______

IV. CONCLUSION.................................................................................16

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 3 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________iv________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abbell, 939 F. Supp. at 864........................................................................................................... 13

Admiral Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. of Illinois, No. 14-60079-CIV, 2014 WL 11706440, at *2 

(S.D. Fla. July 24, 2014)............................................................................................................. 7

AlliedSignal Recovery Tr. v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 934 So. 2d 675, 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006).. 6

Ballou v. Talari, No. 8:16-CV-0598-T-MAP, 2017 WL 11473692, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 

2017) ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Eon Streams, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:05-cv-578, 2007 WL 954181........... 8

In re Fischer, No. 03 01222, 2006 WL 4667133, at *2 (Bankr. D. Md. July 7, 2006).......... 15, 16

Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Off. Depot Inc., No. CV 13-239-LPS, 2017 WL 3573812, at *1 

(D. Del. Aug. 17, 2017) ....................................................................................................... 14,15

Robert v. State, 840 So. 2d 962, 970 (Fla. 2002)............................................................................ 6

Ross v. Carnival Corp., No. 09-22834-CIV, 2011 WL 4527425, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2011)

................................................................................................................................................... 14

United States v. Abbell, 939 F. Supp. 860, 863–64 (S.D. Fla. 1996)....................................... iv, 12

Zuma Seguros, CA v. World Jet of Delaware, Inc., No. 15-22626-CIV, 2017 WL 3705585, at *2 

(S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2017)............................................................................................................ 6

Other Authorities

Ethical Consideration of 5-0 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility........................... 12

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 16(b)(4) ................................................................................................................. 4

Rule 3.7 of Maryland’s Rules of Professional Conduct ............................................................... 15

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 4 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________v________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Rule 4-3.7 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct ....................................................... 1, 5, 8

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 5 of 23
_________________1_____________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, GlobalGeeks, Inc. (“GlobalGeeks”) by and through 

its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Expedited 

Motion to Disqualify Jianyin Liu, Esq. as trial counsel in this case for Plaintiff, Stone Technology 

(HK) Co., Ltd. (“Stone”).

I. INTRODUCTION

Rule 4-3.7 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from being an 

advocate at trial if “the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client” unless 

certain exceptions are satisfied. Stone has made clear in recent weeks that Jianyin Liu, Esq. (also 

known as James Liu, Esq., “Mr. Liu”) will be a witness on behalf of Stone in this case and Mr. Liu 

will testify on substantive and contested issues. The result is that Mr. Liu must be disqualified as 

Stone’s trial counsel to avoid inevitable prejudice to both parties. 

GlobalGeeks previously sought the appointment of second chair counsel to represent Stone 

while GlobalGeeks cross examined Mr. Liu at trial. During the hearing on that motion and in her 

Report and Recommendation, Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis stated things clearly: if Stone intended 

to call Mr. Liu as a witness at trial, there could be a disqualification issue. See ECF No. 141, Report 

and Recommendation Denying Motion to Appoint Second Chair Counsel (Report and

Recommendation adopted by Judge Bloom’s August 25, 2021 Order, ECF No. 159). Undaunted 

by the Magistrate Judge’s admonition, since that hearing and the Report and Recommendation, 

Stone has done the following:

(1) named Mr. Liu as one of its witnesses in the parties’ Revised Witness List; 

(2) stated that Mr. Liu’s testimony will address three substantive and contested 

issues in the case; 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 6 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________2________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

(3) designated portions of Mr. Liu’s deposition transcript to be read to the jury; 

and

(4) identified a significant number of trial exhibits for which he is a sender or 

recipient.

Stone’s trial strategy has placed Mr. Liu at the center of this case. At this point there can 

be no doubt that he is a likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of Stone and it is equally clear 

that his testimony will relate to contested issues. As a result, none of the exceptions to Rule 4-3.7 

apply. The issue of disqualification is no longer a hypothetical one. The issue is past brewing and 

it is ripe for determination. Mr. Liu must be disqualified as trial counsel.

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Mr. Liu’s Involvement in the Case.

Mr. Liu was Stone’s counsel throughout the duration of the transactions giving rise to this 

litigation and was also involved in the negotiations surrounding these transactions. Mr. Liu is also 

sole counsel for Stone in this litigation, as he has been throughout. Irrespective of his role as 

counsel in this litigation, Mr. Liu’s knowledge and involvement in the underlying transactions 

make him a material witness in connection with this litigation.

Stone acknowledged Mr. Liu’s central role in the facts by listing him as a witness in Stone’s 

initial disclosures and by making him available for a deposition. During that deposition, counsel 

for GlobalGeeks asked Mr. Liu if he planned to testify as part of Stone’s case in chief. Mr. Liu 

provided a long answer that can be summarized as “I don’t think so.” ECF No. 74-1, J. Liu dep. at 

13:2-14:13.

B. GlobalGeeks Motion to Appoint Second Chair Counsel.

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 7 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________3________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Based on Mr. Liu’s representation that he would not testify at trial on behalf of Stone, 

GlobalGeeks did not seek to disqualify Mr. Liu as trial counsel on this case. However, on June 9, 

2021, GlobalGeeks filed a Motion to Compel Second Chair Counsel for Stone (ECF No. 81) as 

GlobalGeeks was likely to call Mr. Liu in its case in chief. As described in GlobalGeeks’ 

Memorandum of Law (ECF No. 83-1) and in its Reply Brief (ECF No. 122), GlobalGeeks filed 

the motion as a way to reduce the risk of prejudice to any party and to avoid the potential for juror 

confusion when Mr. Liu is testifying with Stone’s counsel table remaining empty.

This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Louis who held a phone hearing on 

August 3, 2020. During that hearing, Mr. Liu stated for the first time “that he may need to testify 

on behalf of his client to lay a foundation to introduce an email, which was characterized as a key 

but uncontested document.” ECF No. 141, at 2. Mr. Liu further stated that any testimony he might 

offer would be limited to laying a foundation for the admission of an email on which he is copied. 

Id. at 3. Mr. Liu further explained that any such testimony would be uncontested, but Mr. Liu did 

not provide a clear explanation for the actual scope of his testimony. 

On August 10, 2021, Judge Louis issued her Report and Recommendation that the motion 

be denied without prejudice (ECF No. 141). Id. Judge Louis made clear that she would view the 

matter differently if Stone intended to call Mr. Liu as a witness in its case in chief: “while the 

potential for disqualification is brewing, it is insufficient at this posture to conclude that it is 

‘likely’ that Mr. Liu will be called as a witness.” Id. at 3. Judge Louis similarly urged Mr. Liu to 

consider himself warned regarding the consequences of naming himself as a witness on behalf of 

Stone:

Of course, the Court retains both the authority to determine, should 

Plaintiff decide to rely on Mr. Liu for his testimony, that the 

disqualification of counsel at that juncture does not establish good 

cause required for the continuation of a trial date. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 8 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________4________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

16(b)(4). As noted at the hearing, Plaintiff is in the best position to 

know the likelihood of Mr. Liu being called as a necessary witness 

on behalf of his client; an assessment Plaintiff should be making 

without awaiting a court order disqualifying Mr. Liu. 

Id.

C. Stone Now Intends to Call Mr. Liu as a Witness to Testify on Substantive and 

Contested Issues.

On August 24, 2021, Stone sent GlobalGeeks a draft joint witness list. That draft included 

Mr. Liu as a witness and a parenthetical stating that he would be testifying “for the limited purpose 

of the issues of receiving the email on March 30, 2020 from Ahmad,” which was consistent with 

Mr. Liu’s representation to Judge Louis during the August 3 hearing. Ex. A, Aug. 24, 2021, email 

from J. Liu and attachment, at 4. On the following day, counsel for GlobalGeeks followed up, 

asking if Mr. Liu could elaborate on the anticipated scope of his testimony. Mr. Liu provided a 

somewhat vague response, stating: 

I think I might be able to testify on the June 8 Agreement drafts and 

their content and the April 24 agreement draft and revisions back 

and forth. All of them are stipulated as authentic. 

In terms of the email, I might testify that the content of the email I 

received. Other than those, I won’t testify anything out of the 

purview unstipulated.

Let me know what you think.

Ex. B, Aug. 25, 2021 email chain at 4. Counsel for GlobalGeeks responded by stating that such 

testimony would violate Rule 3.7. Id. Mr. Liu’s position is that these issues are uncontested and 

therefore his testimony is permissible. Id. at 3.

In an effort to work through these issues and determine if Mr. Liu’s testimony would be 

limited to uncontested issues, counsel for GlobalGeeks sought to drill down on the substance of 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 9 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________5________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Mr. Liu’s testimony and how it would be presented. Id. at 2-3. As it stands now, it appears that 

Mr. Liu plans to testify on the following issues: 

1. The content of a March 30, 2020 email from Ahmad Loul to Jianyin Liu, Philip Peng, 

and Abdul Loul;

2. The revisions sent between GlobalGeeks and Stone with respect to a draft April 24, 

2020 agreement that was never signed; and

3. The negotiation of a draft June 8, 2020 agreement that was never signed. 

Id. at 1.

Mr. Liu also indicated that he did not plan to ask another lawyer to be present to ask him 

questions in connection with his direct examination (or his cross-examination by undersigned 

counsel) and that he “might request the judge to allow [him] to testify the portion without asking 

another lawyer to ask me questions.” Id. at 2. As of the filing of this Motion, Mr. Liu has not filed 

any such motion. The result is that Stone’s current plan for trial is to have its lawyer testify through 

open ended narrative on issues that are most certainly not “uncontested.” See Section IV.C., infra. 

Finally, on August 30, 2021, the parties filed their Revised Joint Witness List (ECF No. 

161), which identified the amount of time that each party intended to call their witnesses for direct 

and cross examination. Stone now intends to have Mr. Liu testify for approximately one hour. Id.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Rule 4-3.7 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct is Designed to Prevent 

Prejudice to Both Parties.

Rule 4-3.7 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer may not act 

in the dual role of witness and advocate at trial on behalf of his client except in certain limited 

circumstance. Those exceptions are when:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 10 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________6________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

(2) the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there 

is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in 

opposition to the testimony;

(3) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services 

rendered in the case; or

(4) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship 

on the client.

The “purpose of the rule is to prevent the evils that arise when a lawyer dons the hats of 

both an advocate and witness for his or her own client. Such a dual role can prejudice the opposing 

side and create a conflict of interest.” Robert v. State, 840 So. 2d 962, 970 (Fla. 2002). Examples 

of “these ‘evils’ include the prejudicial scenarios where the jury may give more weight to a 

lawyer’s testimony or where the lawyer’s testimony may differ from the client’s own testimony.” 

Zuma Seguros, CA v. World Jet of Delaware, Inc., No. 15-22626-CIV, 2017 WL 3705585, at *2 

(S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2017); AlliedSignal Recovery Tr. v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 934 So. 2d 675, 678 

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (“the dual role could prejudice the opposing party by bolstering the 

lawyer’s testimony for his client because it comes from an advocate.”). 

B. Mr. Liu is a Necessary Witness.

By naming Mr. Liu as one of its witnesses as part of its case in chief, Stone must concede 

that Mr. Liu is a necessary witness. He is so necessary, that Stone designated portions of Mr. Liu’s 

testimony to be read to the jury in the event that Mr. Liu is unavailable to testify live at trial. See 

ECF No. 149, Stone Deposition Designations, at 9 (“Exhibit F: Jianyin Liu (aka James Liu) (ECF 

No. 74-1)”). The designated portion of Mr. Liu’s deposition includes Mr. Liu’s testimony that 

Stone intended for all of its transactions with GlobalGeeks to be performed as 50/50 profit sharing 

deals. See id. at lines 6 and 7. 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 11 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________7________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Stone has also demonstrated that Mr. Liu is a necessary witness by the fact he is the only 

witness who can testify regarding certain documents included in Stone’s exhibit list. The following 

examples stand out: 

• Pltf. Ex. No. 3, “Email 46 from Stone” is an email thread between Ahmad Loul and 

Mr. Liu regarding a draft agreement that the parties never executed. A copy of 

Email 46 is attached hereto as Ex. C.

• Pltf. Ex. No. 24, “Jianyin Liu’s Email 04/25/20 (DE 60-1)” is an email in which 

Mr. Liu provides revisions to a draft agreement exchanged by the parties in late 

April 2020. See ECF No. 60-1.

• Pltf. Ex. No. 45, “Email 67” is a June 8, 2020 email attaching a draft agreement 

sent by Mr. Liu to Ahmad Loul and copying Philip Peng. A copy of Email 67 is 

attached hereto as Ex. D.

Without Mr. Liu’s testimony, these documents are inadmissible. Moreover, Mr. Liu’s name 

is all over the parties’ exhibits. By GlobalGeeks’ count, Stone’s exhibit list contains 31 emails that 

Stone expects to or may offer into evidence. Of those 31 emails, Mr. Liu is a sender or recipient 

on 13 of those emails. See ECF No. 170. Mr. Liu is also the drafter of three draft and unexecuted 

agreements, which are identified as Pltf. Exhibit Nos. 2, 20, 21.

By so naming its trial counsel as a witness, Stone has conceded that Mr. Liu is a necessary 

witness in this case and that there no “other sources available that can demonstrate the matters at 

issue.” See Admiral Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. of Illinois, No. 14-60079-CIV, 2014 WL 

11706440, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2014); see Ballou v. Talari, No. 8:16-CV-0598-T-MAP, 2017 

WL 11473692, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2017) (“A lawyer is not a necessary witness when there 

are other available witnesses to testify to the information.”); Eon Streams, Inc. v. Clear Channel 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 12 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________8________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:05-cv-578, 2007 WL 954181, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 27, 2007) (“Any 

person testifying to a contested issue is a necessary witness.”).

Having identified Mr. Liu as a fact witness to testify on substantive matters in this case 

when there will not be any other witnesses to testify to these issues on behalf of Stone, Mr. Liu is 

certainly a necessary witness for Stone.

C. Mr. Liu’s Testimony Will Address Contested Issues.

Stone will likely argue that Mr. Liu may testify as part of its case in chief, because the testimony 

will relate to uncontested issues. See Rule 4-3.7(a)(1); Ex. B at 3. But the three issues that Mr. Liu 

has identified to be covered in his testimony are very much in dispute. The identified topics of 

testimony and the related documents go to the very heart of the disputed issues in this case. Mr. 

Liu’s testimony on these topics will support Stone’s theory of the case that the parties had an 

overarching agreement that they agreed to split profits for all of the transactions at issue. 

The parties’ briefing at summary judgment and the Parties’ Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation 

makes this clear (ECF No. 171).

1. The March 30, 2020 email from Ahmad Loul.

Stone’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and its description of the case in the PreTrial Stipulation places an email sent by Ahmad Loul at the heart of its case. Ex. E, March 30, 

2020 Email; see ECF No. 171 at 7-8. Specifically, Stone argues that the email constitutes an offer 

by GlobalGeeks to apply a draft agreement prepared by Mr. Liu and sent in a different email to 

the parties’ future transactions. ECF No. 82 at 3. As a result, Stone argues that this email 

establishes that Stone is entitled to judgment on its claims relating to Purchase Order 82800 

(Counts I, II, III) and Purchase Order 82806 (Counts IV and V). See id. at 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14. 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 13 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________9________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

As GlobalGeeks argued in response to Stone’s Motion, nothing in the March 30, 2020 

email shows an offer to apply the terms of a draft contract prepared by Mr. Liu to any future deals. 

ECF No. 108 at 4-5. Ahmad Loul states in the email, “[t]hank you for the agreement. I am 

reviewing it now before we send a purchase order and payment to make sure we are on the same 

page.” Id.; Ex. E at GEEKS0518. The email demonstrates that as of March 30, 2020, the parties 

did not have a meeting of the minds on the terms of any future deals. 

Stone confirmed that this issue remains contested in the portions of the parties’ Pre-trial 

Stipulation. In the section addressing the issues that Stone contends “remain to be litigated at trial”, 

it identified the following issues:

• Whether the March 30 email constituted a request for the 50/50 profit sharing 

agreement to apply to its stock request for PO82800 and PO82806. ECF No. 171 at 

17, ¶ 7.

• “Whether the course of dealing of 50/50 profit sharing (phone deals and March 

2020 Mask Deals) supports the March 30, 2020 email from Ahmad Loul, CEO of 

GG, which requested to sharing profit/loss of the future mask orders for PO82800 

and PO82806?” Id. at 19, ¶ 14; see also id. at ¶¶ 8, 9.

Any testimony by Mr. Liu on this issue would necessarily relate to and address these core 

disputed issues. 

2. The Revisions and Negotiation of an Unexecuted April 24, 2020 

Agreement.

Stone argued in its summary judgment briefs that the parties had an agreement for 50/50 

profit sharing on all of their deals, because the parties exchanged drafts of an agreement that 

included such term in late April 2020. See Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 56 Partial Summary 

Judgment, ECF No. 82, at 7-8; Counter-Defendant’s Second Amended Motion for Rule 56 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 14 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________10________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71, at 18. Stone argues that in the face of such negotiations and the 

parties’ performance on earlier and later deals, GlobalGeeks is bound by the terms in the 

exchanged draft agreements, particularly for Purchase Order 82806. See ECF No. 82 at 8 (“In the 

instant case, GG could have objected to the profit sharing scheme as it alleged in its Counterclaim 

(ECF No. 41, Counterclaim, ¶ 108) that for PO82806, Stone needed to take unilateral responsibility 

of the net loss.”).

These issues are very much contested. Philip Peng, Stone’s CEO, even disputes the position 

advocated in Stone’s briefs. Mr. Peng, as Stone’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness testified that the draft 

agreement discussed in those emails had nothing to do with Purchase Order 82800 or 82806 and 

that it was a proposal for future deals. P. Peng dep., ECF No.: 68-1 at 81:20-83:10 (“And so this 

draft agreement that's being discussed did not have to do with Purchase Order 82800 and Purchase 

Order 82806, correct? A. No. It's related to PO82811, PO82813, and KN95.”).

Stone further confirmed that this issue remains contested by its inclusion among the issues 

that Stone contends “remain to be litigated at trial”:

• “Whether or not after joint drafting of the agreement (unexecuted) around April 24, 

2020, GG’s April 29, 2020 email confirmation of receiving the 800K KN95 

commercial invoices constituted acceptance of collaboration on May KN95 

Orders? (Stone’s 2nd Am. Complaint, Count VII- Breach of Contract of May 

KN95).” ECF No. 171 at 19, ¶ 17; see also id. at ¶¶ 18, 19.

• “Whether or not GG is unjustly enriched by refusing to share net loss after joint 

drafting of the agreement (unexecuted) around April 24, 2020, and GG’s April 29, 

2020 email confirmation of receiving the 800K KN95 commercial invoices, and 

GG’s acquiescence after receiving commercial invoices of 275K KN95 masks sent 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 15 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________11________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

by Stone on April 30, 2020 Stone; and the commercial invoices of one million 

KN95 masks on May 6, 2020? (Stone’s 2nd Am. Complaint, Count IX- Unjust 

Enrichment of May KN95).” Id. at ¶ 21.

3. The Negotiation of a June 8, 2020 Agreement that the Parties Never 

Signed.

The issues relating to the draft June 8, 2020 agreements are similarly contested. Stone 

discusses the contested nature of these documents in detail on pages 5-11 of its Reply in support 

of its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 125. GlobalGeeks argues that the exchanged drafts 

are consistent with its position that the parties had an agreement for Purchase Order 82806 to be a 

consignment deal and Stone argues it supports its position of a profit sharing arrangement. See id.

Mr. Liu is the only witness that can provide the testimony on behalf of Stone that the draft 

June 8 agreements supports its position in this case. Even if Mr. Peng testifies live at trial, he 

testified that he did not understand the draft June 8, 2020 Agreement:

I don’t - - honestly speaking, even now I don’t know the meaning of 

this entire agreement mean. I’m not a lawyer, as I said. This is all 

legal, legal words. I don’t know the meaning even.

Q. You don’t understand the meaning of it saying this is the entire 

agreement?

A. I do not. If it’s in Chinese, I know that, but if it’s in English, I 

don’t know the exact meaning. 

Q. Well, I don’t want to - - I don’t want to intrude on any attorneyclient privilege, but did your lawyer - - did James send you a version 

of this agreement in Chinese for you to read?

A. No. He just sent me English.

Q. And you didn’t read the agreement before you sent it off to your 

partners?

A. I trust James. That’s why I pay him.

ECF No. 68-1, at 190:5-21.

Finally, on August 31, 2021, Stone provided its proposed demonstrative exhibits to 

GlobalGeeks, See Ex. F. The provided demonstrative shows just how central the topics that Mr. 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 16 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________12________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Liu intends to testify on are to Stone’s case. Each of the identified topics are identified in the lefthand column of the first page of Stone’s demonstrative exhibit and directly correspond to the topics 

that Stone has identified for Mr. Liu’s testimony: (1) March 30, 2020 Draft Agreement, (2) April 

24, 2020 Draft Agreement, and (3) June 8, 2020 Agreement (two versions in total). Id.; see p. 5, 

supra.

D. Mr. Liu’s Dual Rule as Stone’s Advocate and as Stone’s Necessary Fact 

Witness Prejudices Both Parties.

1. Mr. Liu’s Testimony Will Prejudice Stone.

One of the purposes behind Rule 3.7 is to avoid the problem of a lawyer having to argue 

his own credibility. “If a lawyer is both counsel and witness, he becomes more easily impeachable 

for interest and thus may be a less effective witness.” United States v. Abbell, 939 F. Supp. 860, 

863–64 (S.D. Fla. 1996) (quoting Ethical Consideration of 5-0 of the ABA Code of Professional 

Responsibility). “An advocate who becomes a witness is in the unseemly and ineffective position 

of arguing his own credibility.” Id. That is exactly what will happen if Mr. Liu testifies in this case 

and there are two prime ways in which Mr. Liu’s credibility can be impeached.

First, as trial counsel, Mr. Liu is not a typical fact witness and has a financial interest in the 

outcome of this litigation. During his deposition, Mr. Liu testified that Stone is compensating him 

by paying an hourly rate, but also testified that he might receive a bonus from Stone in exchange 

for a favorable result in this case. ECF No. 74-1 at 89:5-90:18.

Second, just as the disputes between GlobalGeeks and Stone were coming to a head, in 

June of 2020, Mr. Liu attempted to do a business deal with GlobalGeeks to import millions of 

protective masks without any involvement from or by Stone. Ex. G, GEEKS0066-68. This impacts 

Mr. Liu’s credibility both as a witness and as an advocate. Mr. Liu was attempting to do business 

with GlobalGeeks at the very same time that he now argues and will testify that GlobalGeeks was 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 17 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________13________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

breaching contracts with his client. Additionally, this attempted transaction demonstrates that Mr. 

Liu had no problem competing directly against his own client who was unaware that Mr. Liu was 

separately attempting to do business with GlobalGeeks. ECF No. 98-1, P. Peng dep. at 231:16-

234:1.

2. Mr. Liu’s Testimony Will Prejudice GlobalGeeks.

Given that Mr. Liu may be Stone’s only live witness from Stone at trial1and the only face 

that the jury will ever see from Stone, his role takes on even greater importance. There is a 

significant risk that the jury will not fully appreciate the difference between Mr. Liu’s role as an 

advocate arguing the facts and his role as a witness, whose role “is to state facts objectively.” 

Abbell, 939 F. Supp. at 864.

Additionally, while there is certainly the possibility that GlobalGeeks will impeach Mr. 

Liu’s testimony, the risk of the opposite result is equally present. GlobalGeeks “may be 

handicapped in challenging the credibility of the lawyer when the lawyer also appears as an 

advocate in the case.” Id.

E. The Facts of this Case Support Disqualification Even if Stone May Suffer

Hardship.

Magistrate Judge Louis was clear during the August 3, 2021 hearing and in the August 10, 

2021 Report and Recommendation. If Stone identified Mr. Liu on the August 30, 2021 witness 

list, Stone would be running the risk of Mr. Liu’s disqualification and that such disqualification 

would not constitute good cause to continue the trial date. Since the time of the August 3 hearing, 

Stone has expanded the scope of Mr. Liu’s anticipated testimony from laying the foundation for a 

single email to addressing three significant issues over the course of an hour of testimony.

1 Stone has represented that Philip Peng may attend trial to testify live.

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 18 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________14________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Magistrate Judge Louis anticipated this “brewing” issue and made clear to Stone and Mr. 

Liu it needed to address and resolve this issue immediately. The available options to Stone were 

clear: (1) either proceed to trial without calling Mr. Liu as a witness or (2) rely on Mr. Liu’s 

testimony and retain new trial counsel. Rather than going with either viable option, Stone doubled 

down by expanding the scope of Mr. Liu’s testimony while wholly ignoring the important ethical 

and professional considerations.

The Court has provided Stone with ample warning of the consequences of proceeding to 

rely on Mr. Liu’s testimony. Given these facts, Stone cannot now claim that it will suffer 

substantial hardship as a result of its choices.

F. Other Courts Have Disqualified Trial Counsel in Similar Circumstances.

While the remedy of disqualifying a party’s counsel from participating at trial is a severe 

sanction, the facts warrant such relief here. Rule 4-3.7 is clear that a lawyer cannot be both an 

advocate at trial and a fact witness when he will testify on substantive and contested issues. As 

explained above, Mr. Liu is a necessary fact witness for Stone. Both Stone and GlobalGeeks’ 

interests will be best served through his disqualification and would be a proper exercise of this 

Court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise the bar and to ensure compliance with the Rules of 

Professional Conduct. See Ross v. Carnival Corp., No. 09-22834-CIV, 2011 WL 4527425, at *2 

(S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2011).

In Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Off. Depot Inc., No. CV 13-239-LPS, 2017 WL 

3573812, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2017), the court disqualified the plaintiff’s counsel where he 

appeared on both parties’ “may call witness lists and ha[d] personal knowledge of relevant facts.” 

The court recognized that disqualification is a severe sanction, but that it was necessary because 

counsel’s “dual role will only serve to confuse or mislead the jurors who, unlike a judge, may find 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 19 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________15________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

it difficult to distinguish between the role of a fact witness and the role of counsel.” Id. at *1, n. 

4. The facts here are even more compelling than in Princeton Digital Image Corp., because both 

GlobalGeeks and Stone have made clear that Mr. Liu will testify as part of their cases.

The court in Princeton Digital Image Corp. further explained that even if the lawyer did 

not testify, it would be “too prejudicial for him to serve as an advocate while his name and 

representations on his behalf of [the plaintiff] are at the epicenter of the disputes to be tried, replete 

in the record, and will be assessed by the jury as party admissions.” Id. The situation is no different 

here. Mr. Liu is on many of the most important trial exhibits that the jury in this case will see and 

is a central figure in this case. Even if Stone changes its trial strategy and chooses not to call Mr. 

Liu, it is clear that Mr. Liu’s name will be all over the documents that the parties will present to 

the jury and this fact alone will lead to juror confusion and prejudice. The deposition testimony 

makes clear that Mr. Liu will need to ask the witnesses many questions about things he said to 

them. See e.g. ECF No. 92-1, at 54:13-16; ECF No. 68-1, at 34-15-18 (“I’m showing you Exhibit 

N, which is the corresponding email 67 produced by Stone to Ahmad copying Philip. And this is 

written by Jianyin Liu, this is me and –“).

In re Fischer, No. 03 01222, 2006 WL 4667133, at *2 (Bankr. D. Md. July 7, 2006) also 

contains parallel facts and resulted in disqualification. In Fischer, the court explained that it had 

previously explained to the counsel/witness “that he may not serve as both an advocate and a 

witness under” Rule 3.7 of Maryland’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which is very similar to 

Florida’s rule. Id. at *1. This warning is very similar to the warning given by Magistrate Judge 

Louis during the August 3 hearing and as provided in the August 10 Report and Recommendation. 

See ECF No. 141. The lawyer/witness argued that the opposing party was using Rule 3.7 “as a 

strategic litigation device or a technique of harassment,” but the Court explained that it was the 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 20 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________16________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

plaintiff and not the defendant that that placed the lawyer/witness on its witness list. Fischer, 2006 

WL 4667133, at *2.

The Fischer court viewed the issue of which party was calling trial counsel as a witness as 

a significant and dispositive distinction:

It is one thing for an attorney to seek excuse from Rule 3.7(a) where 

the opposing side has called him for tactical effect or for 

inconsequential purposes. But where an attorney has been named on 

his own client’s witness list, has had weeks if not months to prepare 

new counsel, and has both outside and associate counsel available 

to assist if necessary, he should not be allowed to disregard the 

general provisions of Rule 3.7(a).

Id.

Just like the lawyer in Fischer, it should have been clear to Mr. Liu that if Stone named 

him on its witness list, disqualification could likely result. In spite of this explicit warning, Stone 

opted to list Mr. Liu anyway. Mr. Liu’s status as a central figure in the facts of this case and Stone’s 

trial strategy of depending on him to prove its claims and defenses leaves only one option: Mr. Liu 

must be disqualified as trial counsel in this case on behalf of Stone.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, GlobalGeeks requests that the Court disqualify Jianyin Liu, Esq. from 

serving as trial counsel on behalf of Stone in this case.

Dated: August 31, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Glen M. Lindsay

Glen M. Lindsay, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 59200

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

312 SE 17th Street

2nd Floor

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316

Tel.: (954) 767-6333

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 21 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________17________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

Fax: (954) 767-8111

Email: glindsay@saavlaw.com

Service Email: eservice@saavlaw.com

and

Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq.*

BONI, ZACK & SNYDER 

15 St. Asaphs Rd.

Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

Tel: 610.822.0200

Email: beichel@bonizack.com

Attorneys for GlobalGeeks, Inc.

*Admitted pro hac vice

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 22 of 23
Stone v GlobalGeeks

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23251-BB

______________18________________

SAAVEDRA | GOODWIN

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 31, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion 

to Disqualify with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that I 

served the foregoing document on all counsel of record via CM/ECF as follows:

 /s/ Glen M. Lindsay

Glen M. Lindsay, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 59200

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 173-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 23 of 23