Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; May 8, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory, Inc. and Scantibodies Laboratory, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus to compel the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to vacate its denial of Scantibodies' motion to disqualify Brobeck, Phleger, Harrison, who represented Nichols Institute Diagnostics, Inc., and to unseal a memorandum submitted in opposition to the disqualification motion. Nichols opposed the petition.
The case centers on a November 27, 2001, meeting where Scantibodies executives interviewed Bradford Duft from Brobeck, unaware that Duft’s partner, Douglas Olson, was already representing Nichols. Following the meeting, Brobeck declined to represent Scantibodies. On January 8, 2002, Nichols sued Scantibodies for patent infringement, prompting Scantibodies to move for disqualification based on alleged confidential information obtained by Duft.
The district court denied the disqualification motion on March 21, 2002, determining that no attorney-client relationship was established during the meeting and that the ethical screen implemented by Brobeck was sufficient to protect Scantibodies' confidentiality interests. Although Duft was personally disqualified from representing Nichols, the court held that the entire firm was not disqualified.
In seeking the writ of mandamus, Scantibodies challenged the district court’s factual findings regarding the lack of an attorney-client relationship and the adequacy of the ethical screen. Scantibodies contended that ethical screens should not protect firms from disqualification except in specific instances involving former judges or government attorneys. However, the district court's reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent affirmed the use of ethical screens in such situations.
Ultimately, Scantibodies did not meet the burden of proving that the district court's findings were clearly erroneous. The court denied the writ of mandamus and declared Scantibodies' motion for a stay moot.