Opinion ID: 2339728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Petitioners' motions regarding the disk

Text: Petitioners filed a motion with the district court for the dismissal of Bumble's case with prejudice or, in the alternative, a motion to prohibit Bumble's use of misappropriated confidential and privileged documents and for disqualification of Bumble's counsel. In the motion, petitioners alleged that Mowbray received the disk from Haidar in violation of the injunction petitioners had obtained against him. Petitioners also alleged that Bumble failed to notify them for over eight months that it had petitioners' confidential and privileged documents, and that Bumble used that information to gain a tactical advantage in [the] litigation. Bumble opposed the motion, arguing that it had produced the disk through the normal course of discovery. Bumble included with its response an expert report supporting its claim that Mowbray did not violate any of Nevada's ethical rules and that disqualification was not warranted. Petitioners replied and included a rebuttal expert report. After a hearing on the motion, the district court declined to dismiss the case or disqualify Mowbray and his firm, Fennemore Craig. In its findings of fact, which neither side challenges, the district court stated that, [o]n or about September 24, 2009, [Bumble] received ... an unsolicited package from an anonymous source. The district court also found that Bumble and its counsel conspicuously set forth their receipt of the disk in the NRCP 16.1 disclosure, and that [n]either [Bumble] nor its counsel had actual knowledge of the injunction [petitioners had against Haidar]. The court concluded that petitioners failed to show that any of the documents, except a draft affidavit, contained on the disk were privileged. The court excluded the use of the draft affidavit, but otherwise allowed the use of the documents contained on the disk. Despite the one privileged document on the disk, the district court concluded that Bumble's counsel acted reasonably and in accordance with the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the documents and the Disk. The court also concluded that Mowbray went out of [his] way to advise [petitioners] that [he] had received the documents and Disk, to let [petitioners] ascertain their provenance and to give them every opportunity to register an objection and demand return and non-use. Petitioners now seek extraordinary writ relief to instruct the district court to disqualify Mowbray and his firm or, alternatively, to compel the district court to reconsider the disqualification motion.