High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

8 Citing cases

  1. Vineyard Investigations v. E. & J. Gallo Winery

    1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024)

    First, technical information, unlike privileged attorney work product information, is discoverable. See, e.g., In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Sec. Litig., No. C-02-1486 CW (EDL), 2006 WL 2845212, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2006); accord Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-2269-CM/DJW, 2013 WL 501783, at *6-*7 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2013); Chrisjulbrian Co. v. Upper St. Rose Fleeting Co., No. CIV. A. 93-1879, 1994 WL 673440, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 2019). Second, courts have consistently considered the policy implications of the second factor, and in so doing, have been primarily concerned about a rule that would “encourage[e] an attorney to consult with many experts in an attempt to preclude an adversary from finding an expert.” Edwards Vacuum LLC, 2020 WL 7360682, at *7; see also see Sarl, 2013 WL 501783, at *7 (“the expert disqualification doctrine derives from legal principles surrounding attorney conflicts of interest and cases where its purpose is to protect privileges such as the attorney-client privilege”).

  2. Noland v. Walter

    19-cv-1278-JWB-TJJ (D. Kan. Aug. 2, 2021)

    “[A]n expert's prior access to and knowledge of the opposing party's privileged or confidential information may prejudice the integrity of the judicial process.”High Point SARL v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-2269-CM-DJW, 2013 WL 501783, at *4 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2013). The Court found Defendant has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances which would permit her to discover the opinions of Drs. Merkler or Patten.

  3. Edwards Vacuum LLC v. Supply

    Case No. 3:20-cv-1681-AC (D. Or. Dec. 15, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Many courts have concluded that prior disclosure, not made in preparation for the then-pending litigation, of confidential technical information to a proposed expert witness does not justify disqualifying the expert, at least not when the confidential technical information is otherwise discoverable. For example, in Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 2013 WL 501783 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2013), the court rejected the objecting party's argument that an expert witness who received confidential technical information should be disqualified. 2013 WL 501783, at *6-7.

  4. Lundbeck v. Apotex Inc.

    Civil Action No. 18-88-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, the types of technical information he did receive are discoverable by Defendants, thus minimizing the potential for an unfair advantage to Defendants. See High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-2269, 2013 WL 501783, at *7 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2013); Palomar Med. Techs., Inc. v. Tria Beauty, Inc., No. 09-11081, 2012 WL 517532, at *4 (D. Mass. Feb. 15, 2012) (denying motion to disqualify expert physician who had conducted two clinical studies for the adversary; expert had not received litigation strategy, work-product, or privileged information from the adversary, which "weigh[ed] strongly against disqualification"); Space Sys./Loral, 1995 WL 686369, *3; see also Auto-Kaps, LLC v. CloroxCo., No. 15-1737, 2016 WL 1122037, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2016) (granting motion to disqualify where plaintiff's expert "consulted on the very project that culminated in the [accused product]" under circumstances where it was "not difficult to infer that [the expert] was given or exposed to confidential information relating to [the defendant's] strategy regarding its intellectual property"). It also appears that much of the information from one study is public, as the results were published.

  5. Tabaian v. Intel Corp.

    No. 3:18-cv-00326-HZ (D. Or. Sep. 22, 2018)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Similarly, in a 2013 Kansas case, the district court observed that in considering the existence of a confidential relationship, the court must determine whether the relationship was one in which "it would be reasonably expected that any communication between [the objecting party and the expert] would be maintained in confidence by the expert." Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-2269-CM/DJW, 2013 WL 501783, at *4 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2013). In that case, the court held that a confidential relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant's expert who was not a former employee of the plaintiff's and was neither a former expert nor consultant for the plaintiff but who had received confidential information from the plaintiff while employed by a company previously "affiliated" with the plaintiff.

  6. In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig.

    No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2017)

    The Court concludes that the drastic step of expert disqualification cannot be based on an assumption. See Williams v. Old Faithful Tours, Inc., No. 11-CV-287-F, 2012 WL 9490902, at *4 (D. Wy. Sept. 25, 2012) (denying motion to disqualify where the expert affirmed under oath that he neither received nor used any confidential information provided by the adverse party in developing his report); Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-2269-CM/DJW, 2013 WL 501783, at *7 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2013) (requiring receipt of confidential information concerning legal strategies to warrant disqualification where the expert had no prior relationship with the moving party); In re Incretin-Based Therapies Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 15-56997, 2017 WL 6030735, at *3 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2017) (suggesting that disqualification of an expert should not occur unless the court has "specific and unambiguous" evidence that the expert received confidential information). In order to protect the highly sensitive attorney-client relationship, attorney disqualification rules permit courts to assume that confidences were received.

  7. In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig.

    No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2017)

    The Court concludes that the drastic step of expert disqualification cannot be based on an assumption. See Williams v. Old Faithful Tours, Inc., No. 11-CV-287-F, 2012 WL 9490902, at *4 (D. Wy. Sept. 25, 2012) (denying motion to disqualify where the expert affirmed under oath that he neither received nor used any confidential information provided by the adverse party in developing his report); Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-2269-CM/DJW, 2013 WL 501783, at *7 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2013) (requiring receipt of confidential information concerning legal strategies to warrant disqualification where the expert had no prior relationship with the moving party); In re Incretin-Based Therapies Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 15-56997, 2017 WL 6030735, at *3 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2017) (suggesting that disqualification of an expert should not occur unless the court has "specific and unambiguous" evidence that the expert received confidential information). In order to protect the highly sensitive attorney-client relationship, attorney disqualification rules permit courts to assume that confidences were received.

  8. Brunstad v. Medtronic, Inc.

    14-v-255-jdp (W.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2015)

    The party seeking disqualification bears the burden of proving these elements. Id. Disqualification motions should not be granted lightly, because such motions carry great potential for abuse. Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-2269, 2013 WL 501783, at *4 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2013). Plaintiffs cite In re Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation, No. 4:08-md-2004, 2010 WL 1416548 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2010), in which the court declined to exercise its inherent authority, and offered some criticism of this line of cases.