Opinion ID: 2145153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether causes are substantially related

Text: In the instant case, Wal-Mart asserts that the district court erred in failing to disqualify Van Steenberg. The parties are not disputing what the factual and legal issues are, but instead what implications they have on the disqualification decision. It is not disputed that Van Steenberg's interests are materially adverse to Wal-Mart's or that the information Smith acquired through his previous defenses of Wal-Mart is imputed to the entire Van Steenberg law firm. Thus, it is only left to be determined whether any of the previous cases in which Van Steenberg defended Wal-Mart are substantially related to the instant case against Wal-Mart. Of the four cases in which Van Steenberg defended Wal-Mart, the case with factual and legal issues most closely related to the instant case is Pottorff v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Scotts Bluff County District Court, docket 38913. As such, we must determine whether the Pottorff case and the instant case are substantially related. In the instant case, Holden asserts that Wal-Mart's negligence caused her to suffer a strained knee and sprained ankle when she fell into a hole located in the store's parking lot. Approximately 1 year after Holden was injured, but 2 years before Petitt entered an appearance as Holden's counsel, Van Steenberg concluded its defense of Wal-Mart in the Pottorff case. In the Pottorff case, the jury found that Wal-Mart's negligence caused Pottorff to suffer a bulging disk, an injured elbow, headaches, and leg pain when she slipped and fell in an area inside the store that had previously been wet-mopped. Wal-Mart asserts that these cases are substantially related because in both cases a customer was injured in a fall on Wal-Mart's premises, the petitions alleged that Wal-Mart was negligent in failing to properly maintain its premises and in failing to warn of dangerous conditions, and Wal-Mart asserted contributory negligence and assumption of risk as defenses. Conversely, Van Steenberg, appearing amicus curiae, asserts that these cases are not substantially related because (1) the Pottorff case involved a slip and fall on a slick floor, while the instant case involves a fall into a hole; (2) the Pottorff case involved a floor, while the instant case involves a parking lot; and (3) the accident in the Pottorff case happened inside the store, while the accident in the instant case happened outside the store. Wal-Mart correctly asserts that the pleadings in these cases are similar. However, the mere fact that the pleadings are similar does not make the two cases substantially related. The differences in the factual and legal issues, where a plaintiff falls into a hole in a parking lot as opposed to where a plaintiff falls on a wet floor inside a store, are crucial and are not outweighed by the similarities. We agree with the special master's findings that during the time Wal-Mart was represented by Smith, the policies, procedures, and practices Smith was told about did not include any trade secrets or anything that was not discoverable. Courts have recognized that defense strategies are confidential information that may be factored into the disqualification decision. See, e.g., SLC Ltd. V v. Bradford Group West, Inc., 999 F.2d 464 (10th Cir.1993); Texaco, Inc. v. Garcia, 891 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.1995); Gellman v. Hilal, 159 Misc.2d 1085, 607 N.Y.S.2d 853 (1994). However, the defense strategies utilized in these types of relatively uncomplicated slip-and-fall actions are generally commonplace and routine. Wal-Mart did not assert that Van Steenberg became privy to any defense strategies that are unique, unexpected, unusual, or novel. Thus, we determine that an outside firm, with no prior association with Wal-Mart, would have the same or similar practical knowledge of how Wal-Mart would defend against this action and would have the same discovery opportunities. Because Van Steenberg did not acquire any specialized knowledge of defense strategies or any other discovery advantages, we conclude that the similarity of the factual and legal issues does not create a genuine threat that Van Steenberg may have received confidential information from Wal-Mart that could be used against Wal-Mart in the instant case. Because Wal-Mart failed to meet its burden of clearly showing that it has a legal right to the relief sought, we determine that the district court had no alternative but to deny Wal-Mart's motion to disqualify Van Steenberg. See, State ex rel. Scherer v. Madison Cty. Comrs., 247 Neb. 384, 527 N.W.2d 615 (1995); State ex rel. Wieland v. Beermann, 246 Neb. 808, 523 N.W.2d 518 (1994); State ex rel. Creighton Univ. v. Hickman, 245 Neb. 247, 512 N.W.2d 374 (1994). Since the district court did not have a clear legal duty to act at the time the writ was applied for, we decline to issue the requested writ. See, State ex rel. FirsTier Bank v. Mullen, 248 Neb. 384, 534 N.W.2d 575 (1995); State ex rel. Creighton Univ. v. Hickman, supra .