Opinion
Case No. 2:01-CV-312TC
May 21, 2003
ORDER
This matter is before the court on various motions and objections filed by the law firm of Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee, and Loveless ("Parr Waddoups"). The facts and background of this problem (specifically, the disqualification of Parr Waddoups from representation of the Defendant Columbia Data Products, Inc., ("CDP") and the subsequent refusal of Parr Waddoups to produce to the Plaintiff Legato Systems, Inc. ("Legato") certain documents in its possession) has been explained in previous orders and pleadings and will not be repeated here except when necessary.
A. The Rule 60(b) Motion
Once again. Parr Waddoups disputes that it has an attorney-client privilege with Legato and asks that the court reconsider its March 13, 2003 Order that Parr Waddoups turn over documents to Legato. Parr Waddoups raises no new arguments in its present motion. The court has carefully considered this issue and denies Parr Waddoups's motion for the same reasons it initially disqualified Parr Waddoups and ordered Parr Waddoups to turn over the documents.
B. Objection to Denial of Protective Order
In its objection to the court's denial of Parr Waddoups's motion for a protective order, Parr Waddoups again raises essentially the same arguments it has raised throughout this controversy. In addition, Parr Waddoups contends that the court ignored Parr Waddoups's "serious ethical concerns" when it ordered Parr Waddoups to turn over the documents. (Reply Mem. in Supp. of Objections to Court Order and Motion for Relief, dkt. #162, at 6.) Parr Waddoups is mistaken. The court has been very mindful of Parr Waddoups's concerns and, as pointed out in Legato's memorandum, at the hearing on March 10, 2003, the court questioned Parr Waddoups's counsel on this issue. Accordingly, the court affirms the denial of Parr Waddoups's motion for a protective order.
C. Objection to Attorneys' Fees
Finally, Parr Waddoups argues that the court has no authority to direct it to pay the attorneys' fees incurred by Legato. But Parr Waddoups seems to ignore the fact that this issue came before the court when Legato moved for an Order that Parr Waddoups be held in contempt of court. It was Legato's contention that with its refusal to produce documents. Parr Waddoups had failed to follow the court's August 21, 2002 Order that Parr Waddoups be disqualified as counsel for CDP. Although the court did not grant this motion, it was clear that with its steadfast refusal to turn over documents to Legato, Parr Waddoups was, in fact, not fully complying with the August 21 Order of disqualification. In that order, the court held that "an attorney-client relationship existed between Legato and Parr Waddoups) (Order of August 21, 2002 at 3.) Clearly, then. Parr Waddoups had an obligation and a duty to produce to Legato, its former client, the Vinca files. Parr Waddoups ignored that duty and, instead, continued to argue that no attorney-client privilege existed. It was also clear that Legato had incurred substantial legal costs in its efforts to obtain the documents, costs it should not have had to bear. Accordingly, the court ordered Parr Waddoups to pay all the costs associated with Legato's efforts to obtain documents. This order stands.
As regards the amount of attorneys' fees claimed by Legato's attorneys, the court concludes that Legato has sufficiently established that the amount is reasonable and appropriate, given the level of experience of the attorneys involved. Accordingly, it orders that Parr Waddoups pay $10,992.44 to Legato's counsel no later than June 2, 2003.
IT IS SO ORDERED.