This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P filed its initial complaint alleging that D's products infringe ten smartphone-related patents. P filed the instant motion less than six weeks before the previous trial date. P alleges that from April 2016 to January 2020, Justin Park worked on smartphone matters for P as counsel at Mayer Brown and was an integral part of the Maxell litigation team. Park (1) Accessed and had full access to all of P's highly confidential business, technical, and attorney-client privileged information and documents, (2) was on the internal and external e-mail distribution lists for these cases where hundreds of confidential e-mails both within Mayer Brown and with P were exchanged, (3) attended meetings with P related to this case including at the client's headquarters in Japan, (4) attended numerous depositions relating to P smartphone matters, (5) has direct knowledge of P's litigation strategy (which includes again privileged attorney mental impressions and work product), and (6) saw confidential and attorney-client information, technical and strategic, related to these cases (and D matters specifically). Maxell was one of Park's clients while at Mayer Brown. Park left Mayer Brown and began working in the Washington, D.C. office of DLA Piper. At the time, DLA Piper was not engaged by D in this matter or in the related International Trade Commission (ITC) matter adverse to P. On July 30, 2020, DLA Piper filed a Public Interest Statement on Apple's behalf in the ITC matter. That same day, Beaber, counsel for Maxell from Mayer Brown, reached out to Park via telephone to discuss DLA Piper's management of any potential conflicts of interest involving Park. Park said Beaber told him that 'P had no intention of seeking to disqualify' DLA Piper and agreed that Park should ask the firm to establish an ethical wall. Park informed Beaber that he had 'had discussions with at least one DLA Piper team member working on the matters adverse to P regarding the attorneys at Mayer Brown working on the P smartphone matters.' Park has spoken to Patrick Park, a DLA Piper attorney in Los Angeles. Patrick Park asked Park if he knew Beaber, and Park responded that Beaber and his team 'were good lawyers.' Park testifies that he did not disclose any confidential client information to Patrick Park at that time or at any other time. Park emailed Mark Fowler, vice chair of his practice group at DLA Piper, regarding an ethical wall. IFowler forwarded that email to Peter Lindau, a member of the firm's Office of General Counsel (OGC). Before that email, DLA Piper's OGC was unaware of Park's prior work for P. Lindau informed Park that he could not speak with anyone working on the ITC matter about P or disclose any information about P to anyone representing D. Park states that he always knew of these ethical obligations and complied with them at all times. On August 10, 2020, Beaber testifies that Park 'responded informally' to his inquiry and said that he had contactedFowler and OGC about implementing an ethical screen. On August 18, 2020, Park testifies that he received a formal ethical screen notification from OGC. The ethical screen mandated that he (1) have no communications with any member of the DLA Apple team related to P; (2) not work on anything related to his previous work for P; (3) not have access to any case files, physical or electronic, for any matter involving D and P; and (4) not receive any information about any matter involving D and P from any of D's counsel, including any member of the DLA Apple team. Lindau confirms that the ethical screen was 'fully implemented' by August 18, 2020. On August 28, 2020, a number of DLA Piper attorneys entered appearances in this matter. Beaber states that he was 'surprised' at DLA Piper's appearance and then initiated the first in a series of communications between Mayer Brown and DLA Piper that began on September 11, 2020. On September 11, 2020, Beaber sent a letter to DLA Piper's opposing counsel and OGC stating that DLA Piper's representation of D raises a conflict of interest that may require disqualification and renewing my request for information regarding the protection of P's highly confidential information. Beaber specifically asked DLA Piper to describe in detail (1) Park's role in the case, if any; (2) any actions that DLA Piper took to notify P of this potential conflict of interest and to protect P's confidential information; and (3) the scope and parameters of any ethical screen implemented with respect to Park. DLA Piper responded that it did not believe it had a disqualifying conflict of interest in this case as Park had not disclosed any P confidential information to anyone on DLA Piper's Apple team and an ethical screen was in place. DLA Piper expressed concerns that the purported issue was tactical in nature. Id. It then described the ethical screen. DLA Piper erected an ethical wall, and separately reiterated to Park that he is prohibited from disclosing any information he may have regarding P or the P Matters to anyone representing D. The lawyers representing D have been advised that they may not seek or attempt to access any confidential information regarding P or the P Matters. If anyone were to attempt to breach the wall, even inadvertently, the Office of General Counsel would be notified. Mayer Brown informed DLA Piper that it had not complied with ABA Model Rule 1.10(a)(2)(ii), which requires prompt written notice of a firm's compliance with Model Rule 1.10(a)(2)(i) (screening of a disqualified attorney), including a description of the screening procedures employed and a statement of the firm's compliance. Mayer Brown noted that Park's 'discussions' with a member of the D Team regarding Mayer Brown and its work on the P smartphone matters raised confidentiality concerns. DLA Piper stated that it had fully complied with its ethical obligations. Everyone at DLA Piper had been informed that Park must be denied access to any and all P matters. DLA Piper attached the sworn declaration of Sean Cunningham, one of the lead attorneys for D in this matter, corroborating the above description and confirming that he had spoken with each member of the DLA Piper Apple team. Each confirmed that they had no communications with Park pertaining to any prior work he performed for P. Park also provided a sworn declaration of compliance and no prior violations. On September 29, 2020, Mayer Brown responded, claiming that: (1) DLA Piper did not provide P or Mayer Brown with prompt and timely written notice as required by Model Rule 1.10(a)(2)(ii) of its representation of De in either this matter or the ITC matter; and (2) DLA Piper did not 'timely screen' Park because the ethical screen was initiated after Beaber 'raised the issue' with Park. On and on the accusations and counteraccusations went. On October 14, 2020, DLA Piper responded that Park searched his email for the term 'P.' Id. That search uncovered several email threads pertaining to P. DLA Piper explains that Mayer Brown 'erroneously included' the emails during Park's transfer as part of a separate transferring client's files. Until this time, DLA Piper maintains, no one at DLA Piper, including Park, knew that he possessed the emails. Park immediately forwarded the emails to OGC. Its IT department conducted an investigation and concluded that none of the emails were accessed by anyone other than Park and OGC.DLA Piper attached the P emails to its response, stating that the 'emails are now and will remain inaccessible to DLA Piper staff and lawyers, including Park, outside the Office of General Counsel.' Mayer Brown responded, stating that the materials Park found in his files were 'highly confidential P case settlement strategies and royalty rates for the P smartphone patent portfolio.' It contends the belated discovery demonstrates that 'there was no plan or direction from DLA Piper to thoroughly search Park's files,' calling into question the efficacy of the purported ethical wall. Park's previous declaration that he 'brought no confidential files or materials with him from Mayer Brown pertaining to P' was now, in P's view, proven to be false.Mayer Brown informed DLA Piper that P would be moving to disqualify. P filed its motion to disqualify DLA Piper on October 28, 2020.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.