Judge Denies Cooley's Bid to DQ King & Spalding in WhatsApp Case
In an order Tuesday, U.S. District Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton found that WhatsApp did not demonstrate that King & Spalding still has access to confidential material from a previous matter it handled for the messaging company, or even that the material is substantially related to the new case.
June 16, 2020 at 10:48 PM
4 minute read
King & Spalding can continue to defend a surveillance technology firm accused of deploying malware targeted at WhatsApp Inc. users after a federal judge blocked the Facebook subsidiary's attempt to boot the firm from the case.
In an order Tuesday, U.S. District Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California denied WhatsApp's motion to disqualify King & Spalding from representing NSO Group Technologies, finding that WhatsApp did not demonstrate that the law firm still has access to confidential material, or even that the material is substantially related to the new case.
WhatsApp argued that King & Spalding violated "a bedrock requirement of attorney loyalty: the duty to avoid switching sides and opposing a client that it once represented," according to the disqualification filing signed by Cooley's Michael Rhodes in San Francisco. King & Spalding represented the messaging service in a sealed matter in 2016, where it had access to related, confidential information, WhatsApp contended.
Three of the four King & Spalding lawyers who represented WhatsApp in the sealed matter, including current FBI Director Christopher Wray, are no longer with the firm. But Hamilton said she didn't need to delve into whether the lone remaining attorney, Paul Mezzina, gained knowledge of confidential information if the cases were not related.
Hamilton noted the difficulty of comparing the two cases given that one of the matters is entirely under seal and both are mired in technical coding language. Yet, her analysis found that WhatsApp "has not demonstrated that the two matters are substantially related and absent such a relationship, there is no presumption that K&S acquired material confidential information."
Hamilton pointed to an antitrust suit against Uber, brought by SC Innovations, where Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher removed plaintiffs' Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan counsel, because the firm repped a substantially similar case for Uber involving a taxi car company.
Hamilton said that though the cases have the potential for overlapping material in the technical details of how an actor can manipulate the platform, SC Innovations also took into account the claims of the cases.
"Any potential overlap in the factual matter is circumscribed by the distinct nature of the legal claims between the prior and current representations," Hamilton wrote. "In SC Innovations, the court relied not just on the overlap in the factual matter but also on the fact that at least one of the prior representations involved allegations that Uber violated antitrust law."
The judge also found that WhatsApp has not demonstrated that any King & Spalding attorney has access to confidential information, since the firm's general counsel and his staff stores and blocks access to the relevant files.
Regardless, Hamilton decided that WhatsApp failed to demonstrate that the documents were material. "Even assuming the documents contain information that is not publicly known and thus confidential, plaintiff has not demonstrated how the technical information is material—i.e., directly in issue or of critical importance—to its current claims, as opposed to general knowledge," she wrote.
Cooley's Rhodes declined to comment on the ruling, and King & Spalding's Joseph Akrotirianakis and Aaron Craig did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday evening.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
How Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
California Federal Court Grants CoStar Group's Motion to Narrow Claims in Move Inc. Trade Secrets Case
Keker Secures Defense Win for EDA Software Company Real Intent in Synopsys Copyright Infringement Case
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250