Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 4581
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01277-JRG-RSP
`
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. ET AL
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION ET AL
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TOYOTA’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 4582
`
`Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor
`
`Manufacturing, Texas, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc., and Toyota Motor
`
`Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc. (collectively “Toyota” or “Defendants”), hereby move to
`
`disqualify Brown Rudnick, LLP as counsel for Plaintiff Blitzsafe Texas, LLC (“Blitzsafe”) and
`
`to strike deposition transcripts of Toyota witnesses taken since July 29, 2016 when one Brown
`
`Rudnick attorney, Vincent Rubino, who previously represented Toyota in numerous patent
`
`matters and was privy to relevant Toyota privileged communications, began working on the
`
`litigation.
`
`Defendants are submitting herewith Ex. A (Declaration of Matthew G. Berkowitz) which
`
`references privilege documents (Exs. 1-28) and Ex. F (Declaration of Kathleen Deering) which
`
`references privilege document (Ex. 1). If the Court wishes, these documents can be submitted
`
`for in camera review.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Blitzsafe is represented in this action by Brown Rudnick LLP and McKool Smith.
`
`Blitzsafe alleges that aspects of Toyota’s “Entune” and “Enform” technology infringe two
`
`patents related to integration of portable audio devices, such as iPhones, with the vehicle stereo
`
`(or “head unit”). One of Blitzsafe’s attorneys is Vincent Rubino, who entered an appearance in
`
`this case on July 29, 2016. Dkt. 129. Prior to representing Blitzsafe, however, Mr. Rubino
`
`represented Toyota in patent litigation matters for years as an attorney at Kenyon & Kenyon.
`
`During the course of his representation of Toyota, Mr. Rubino was repeatedly exposed to
`
`highly sensitive information regarding Toyota’s legal strategies, including Toyota’s internal
`
`assessment of patent infringement claims, its strategy for settlement and mediation, its strategy
`
`regarding the use of Inter Partes Review proceedings in connection with settlement and
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 4583
`
`mediation, and discussions concerning Judge Folsom, who is mediating this case. Mr. Rubino
`
`was also privy to privileged communications evaluating Toyota engineers, including engineers
`
`that Blitzsafe has deposed in this case, that are knowledgeable about Entune and Enform
`
`technology, and that Toyota has identified in its initial disclosures as possible trial witnesses.
`
`While at Kenyon, Mr. Rubino had specific responsibility for a Toyota privilege log involving
`
`communications to and from these same trial witnesses. Mr. Rubino was even sent a privileged
`
`communication with Toyota's legal personnel discussing this very action, including the asserted
`
`patents, Blitzsafe as an entity, and its prior litigation history.
`
`After years of defending Toyota in patent litigation matters, Mr. Rubino abruptly
`
`switched sides and is now suing his former client. The strategy discussions that Mr. Rubino was
`
`privy to, including strategies for litigating in the Eastern District of Texas, strategies for
`
`coordination with suppliers, IPR strategies, and strategies for mediation before Judge Folsom,
`
`applied not just to the prior cases, but to this case as well. Indeed, Mr. Rubino was privy to
`
`Toyota’s evaluations of trial witnesses in this case, and logged their privileged documents. This
`
`confidential information cannot be unlearned. And, by law Mr. Rubino is presumed to share
`
`those confidences with other members of his firm. The conflict of interest created by Mr.
`
`Rubino’s participation in this matter is imputed to his entire firm, requiring disqualification not
`
`only of Mr. Rubino, but Brown Rudnick as well.
`
` To be sure, this is not simply a litigation tactic by Toyota; its trust in the attorney-client
`
`privilege is at stake, given Mr. Rubino’s extensive exposure to Toyota’s most sensitive
`
`discussions that are directly relevant to this matter and that could not possibly be mentally
`
`compartmentalized and quarantined. Moreover, Toyota filed this motion as soon as reasonably
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4584
`
`possible after learning about Mr. Rubino’s possible involvement. Indeed, Brown Rudnick
`
`appeared to be walling Mr. Rubino off for most of this litigation, as Toyota expected it would do.
`
`It was not until July 29th, just before depositions of Toyota witnesses, that Mr. Rubino made an
`
`appearance in the case and began taking depositions of other defendants’ witnesses that Toyota
`
`appreciated his possible involvement. On August 14, 2016, Toyota requested confirmation that
`
`Mr. Rubino had not been involved in any aspect of the litigation involving Toyota. Ex. B (Aug.
`
`14, 2016 Mandir letter to Lambrianakos). Brown Rudnick eventually responded on August 23,
`
`2016, but did not deny his involvement. Ex. C (Aug. 23, 2016 Lambrianakos letter to Mandir).1
`
`“Disqualification, where appropriate, ensures that the case is well presented in court, that
`
`confidential information of present or former clients is not misused, and that a client’s substantial
`
`interest in a lawyer’s loyalty is protected.” Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers
`
`§ 6cmt. i (2000). Disqualification is necessary here to ensure that Blitzsafe does not benefit from
`
`the misuse of Toyota’s confidential information, to ensure that Toyota receives a fair trial, and to
`
`protect Toyota’s and the public’s confidence in the attorney-client privilege.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Current Litigation
`
`Blitzsafe sued Toyota alleging that aspects of its Entune and Enform systems, which
`
`allow a user to play audio from a device such as an iPhone through the car stereo, infringe two of
`
`its patents. No. 15-1277, Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 12-31 (Blitzsafe Complaint against Toyota), Ex. D
`
`(Blitzsafe Infringement Contentions). In its infringement contentions, Blitzsafe has pointed to
`
`Toyota's “head units” (or vehicle entertainment systems) as infringing. Id. Toyota has identified
`
`
`1 See Exhibit G, Declaration of Margaret Welsh, which identifies exhibits B-E cited herein.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 4585
`
`a number of engineers and employees as possible trial witnesses, including Sotshi Hata and
`
`Brian Inouye. Ex. E (Toyota’s Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures) at 10. Blitzsafe has
`
`deposed each of these individuals.
`
`Toyota filed petitions for Inter Partes Review challenging the validity of the two
`
`Blitzsafe patents asserted in this action - U.S. Patent Nos. 7,489,786 and 8,155,342. The Patent
`
`Office has instituted review as to all challenged claims of the '342 patent and some claims of the
`
`'786 patent. Dkt. 133.
`
`Currently, fact discovery is set to close in this case on September 19, 2016, with expert
`
`discovery to complete by October 31, 2016, and Jury Selection on February 6, 2017. Dkt. 56.
`
`Mr. Rubino entered a notice of appearance in this action on July 29, 2016. Dkt. 129.
`
`Counsel for Toyota contacted Brown Rudnick on August 14, 2016 requesting confirmation that
`
`Mr. Rubino had not had any involvement with any aspects of this action concerning Toyota. Ex.
`
`B. The parties conducted a meet and confer regarding the instant motion on August 30, 2016.
`
`B. Mr. Rubino’s Prior Representation of Toyota
`
`Immediately prior to joining Brown Rudnick, Mr. Rubino was an associate at Kenyon &
`
`Kenyon LLP from 2007 to at least late summer 2015. Ex. A (Declaration of Matthew G.
`
`Berkowitz) at ¶ 6.2 As a Kenyon attorney, Mr. Rubino represented Toyota in numerous patent
`
`litigation matters, including a series of actions brought by American Vehicular Sciences
`
`(“AVS”) in the Eastern District of Texas. Ex. A at ¶¶ 4, 7. In the period from 2013 to 2015
`
`
`2 Exhibits 1-28 of Ex. A (Declaration of Matthew G. Berkowitz) are available for in camera
`review.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 4586
`
`alone, Mr. Rubino billed in excess of 1,500 hours of attorney time to Toyota patent litigation
`
`matters. Ex. A at ¶¶ 9-10; Ex. F (Declaration of Kathleen Deering). 3
`
`In two of the AVS cases in which Mr. Rubino represented Toyota, aspects of Toyota’s
`
`Entune and Enform technology were accused of infringement. Ex. A at ¶ 8. In the present
`
`action, Blitzsafe has identified Entune and Enform as allegedly infringing.4 Ex. D (Blitzsafe’s
`
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions).
`
`Mr. Rubino participated significantly in the AVS matters, and was routinely exposed to
`
`Toyota’s confidential information as a result. On a typical patent litigation matter for Toyota, all
`
`attorneys on the Kenyon team were privy to, and expected to be familiar with, communications
`
`between Kenyon and Toyota. In sum, Mr. Rubino was privy to thousands of confidential emails
`
`between Kenyon and Toyota. Ex. A at ¶ 15. Additionally, Kenyon team members working on a
`
`Toyota patent litigation typically used the group email listserv on all internal correspondence of
`
`any significance. Ex. A at ¶¶ 11-13.
`
`
`3 Exhibit 1 of Ex. F (Declaration of Kathleen Deering) is available for in camera review.
`
`4 Although Toyota does not argue that Mr. Rubino should be disqualified on the basis that the
`prior AVS actions were “substantially similar” to Blitzsafe’s infringement allegation, the prior
`actions involving Entune and Enform are significant because many of the same Toyota
`internal product specifications are relevant to both actions and a number of Toyota witnesses
`from the AVS cases have testified or are likely to testify in this action. Ex. A at ¶¶ 8, 16. The
`disclosure of relevant Toyota confidential information is inevitable.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 4587
`
`C.
`
`Sensitive Toyota Confidential Information Known By Mr. Rubino
`
`1.
`
`Toyota Litigation Strategy Regarding Patent Infringement Actions
`
`Kenyon emails document numerous instances where Mr. Rubino received sensitive
`
`privileged and confidential information regarding Toyota legal strategies that are relevant and
`
`applicable to the present case.5
`
`Indeed, Mr. Rubino was even included on an email from Kenyon to Toyota providing
`
`legal advice concerning this very case. Ex. A at ¶ 14. That email covered Blitzsafe as an entity,
`
`the asserted patents, and the Blitzsafe’s prior litigation history.
`
`Mr. Rubino was privy to privileged communications between Kenyon attorneys and
`
`Toyota regarding settlement strategies, strategies for Inter Partes Review, and discussion
`
`regarding mediation with Judge Folsom. Ex. A at ¶ 21. 6 Judge Folsom also serves as the
`
`mediator in the present action and conducted a first mediation session between Blitzsafe and
`
`Toyota on July 14, 2016. (Dkt. 122.) Mr. Rubino even received an email from Mr. Yamashita,
`
`the same Toyota person in charge of this litigation, regarding the type of facts and timing that
`
`might change his view on whether to settle, and if so, for how much. Ex. A at ¶ 20 and Ex. 13.
`
`As further evidence, Mr. Rubino received a presentation made by Kenyon to Toyota
`
`regarding strategies for IPR filings against patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas, the
`
`effect that IPR decisions might have on settlement, and specific assessments of the risks and
`
`
`5 In order to preserve the privilege of these communications, the substance of the
`communications is necessarily described in very general terms here and in the Berkowitz
`Declaration (Ex. A). Toyota can submit many of the actual documents for in camera review.
`
`6 Toyota filed four Petitions for Inter Partes Review challenging the two Blitzsafe patents
`asserted in this case (Nos. 7,489,786 and 8,155,342). The PTAB instituted trial in two of
`those petitions. Dkt. 133.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 4588
`
`rewards of challenging the patents asserted against Entune and Enform systems in the -404 and -
`
`405 AVS cases. Ex. A at ¶ 17. As noted in footnote 3, Toyota has filed IPR petitions in
`
`connection with this case, which are currently pending.
`
`Mr. Rubino also had direct responsibility for handling Toyota’s IPR proceedings relating
`
`to patents asserted in AVS cases relating to exterior vehicle monitoring systems. In connection
`
`with those IPR proceedings, Mr. Rubino was privy to, and participated in, strategy discussions
`
`relating to Toyota’s approach to back-up invalidity arguments, including ex parte reexamination
`
`requests, additional IPR petitions, and IPR joinder motions. Ex. A at ¶ 25.
`
`Mr. Rubino was also privy to other legal strategy discussions, including privileged
`
`discussions regarding strategies for motions to stay and for seeking recovery of fees under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285 (which Toyota has plead in this case). Ex. A at ¶¶ 21-23.
`
`Mr. Rubino was also privy to sensitive discussions regarding Toyota’s relationship with
`
`its suppliers, the potential for indemnification, and how its negotiations with suppliers affect its
`
`settlement strategy. DENSO was one of those suppliers, which is also a supplier to Toyota of
`
`products accused of infringement in this action. Ex. A at ¶ 24.
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Rubino was Privy to Evaluations of Actual and Potential Witnesses in
`this Case
`
`Mr. Rubino was privy to privileged communications regarding highly-sensitive
`
`evaluations of Toyota witnesses, Satoshi Hata and Brian Inouye, that have been deposed in this
`
`case, and that have been identified in Toyota’s initial disclosures as possible trial witnesses. Ex.
`
`A at ¶ 16. Mr. Rubino also reviewed and logged privileged documents from these witnesses, and
`
`circulated internally a draft privilege log for all of the AVS matters (which log included
`
`communications involving Messrs. Hata and Inouye). Ex. A at ¶ 16. Kenyon emails
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 4589
`
`demonstrate that Mr. Rubino had specific discussions with another Kenyon associate regarding
`
`these witnesses’ privileged documents. Ex. A at ¶ 16.
`
`Further, Mr. Rubino received confidential information concerning Kenyon’s impressions
`
`of the strengths and witnesses of potential expert witnesses that Toyota was considering for
`
`testimony relating to Entune and Enform technology. Ex. A at ¶ 19.
`
`D.
`
`Blitzsafe Never Sought a Waiver
`
`Although Toyota knew that Mr. Rubino had joined Brown Rudnick several months ago,
`
`Toyota did not become aware of Mr. Rubino’s involvement in this matter until after he filed a
`
`notice of appearance on July 29, 2016. Ex. A at ¶ 26. Brown Rudnick at no time before or since
`
`approached counsel for Toyota to seek a waiver of any conflict of interest arising from Mr.
`
`Rubino joining the firm or his direct representation of Blitzsafe adverse to Toyota. Toyota does
`
`not consent to Mr. Rubino’s adverse representation in this matter.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards
`
`Disqualification is a procedural matter not unique to patent law. Picker Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Varian Assocs., Inc., 869 F.2d 578, 580–81 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Thus, motions for attorney
`
`disqualification in federal courts are governed by federal standards under the law of the regional
`
`circuit. Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless Corp., 614 F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re
`
`Dresser Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1992). In the Fifth Circuit, courts are directed
`
`to look first to the rules promulgated by the local court itself. In re ProEducation Int'l, Inc., 587
`
`F.3d 296, 299 (5th Cir. 2009); FDIC v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1311–12 (5th Cir.
`
`1995). The Local Rules for the Eastern District indicate that determining the ethical standards
`
`that govern the conduct of attorneys appearing before it requires consideration of the ethical rules
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 4590
`
`announced by the legal profession nationally as well as in Texas. Parallel Networks, LLC v.
`
`Abercrombie & Fitch Co., No. 6:10-cv-111, 2016 WL 3883392, at * 2-3 (April 1, 2016). This
`
`requires the court to look to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional
`
`Conduct and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which govern the conduct of
`
`attorneys practicing in Texas. U.S. Fire Ins., 50 F.3d at 1312; In re Am. Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d
`
`605, 610 (5th Cir. 1992).
`
`The Fifth Circuit recognizes two bases for disqualifying counsel: (1) if the subject matter
`
`of the present and former representation are substantially related; or (2) if the movant’s former
`
`attorney possesses relevant, confidential information such that there is a reasonable probability
`
`that the information could be used to the former client’s disadvantage. Abney v. Wal-Mart, 984
`
`F. Supp. 526, 528 (E.D. Tex. 1997); see MODEL RULE PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.9; TEX.
`
`DISCIPLINARY R. PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.09(a)(2), (a)(3). Texas Rule 1.09(a)(2) precludes
`
`representation if there is a “reasonable probability [the representation] will involve a violation of
`
`Rule 1.05,” which prohibits a lawyer's use of confidential information obtained from a former
`
`client to that former client's disadvantage. In re Am. Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605, 614–15 (5th
`
`Cir. 1992).
`
`A party seeking disqualification on the basis that such confidential information was
`
`disclosed need not disclose the confidential information to the court or the opposing counsel in
`
`order to prevail. Abney , 984 F. Supp. At 530. Rather, the moving party “must make some
`
`showing that some substantive conversation between the former client and the attorney occurred
`
`which contained information relevant to the present litigation.” Id. This burden can be satisfied
`
`by the former client describing the general types of information conveyed and explaining the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 4591
`
`relevance of that information in the present litigation. Islander E. Rental Program, v. Ferguson,
`
`917 F.Supp. 504, 511 (S.D. Tex. 1996).
`
`If the court determines that relevant confidential information was disclosed during the
`
`former period of representation, a presumption attaches that a lawyer in possession of client
`
`confidences shares those confidences with other lawyers at his firm. See, e.g., Corrugated
`
`Container, 658 F.3d at 1346–47; In re Am. Airlines 972 F.2d at 614 n. 1 (citing Corrugated
`
`Container, 659 F.2d at 1346); ProEducation, 587 F.3d at 303. Rule 1.09(b) of the Texas
`
`Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “when lawyers are or have become
`
`members of or associated with a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client if any one
`
`of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so” because of a conflict
`
`disqualification. TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.09, TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN., tit. 2,
`
`subtit. G, app. A (Vernon 2005); Grosser-Samuels v. Jacquelin Designs Enterprises, Inc., 448 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 772, 785–86 (N.D. Tex. 2006)
`
`B.
`
`Toyota is a Former Client of Mr. Rubino
`
`Mr. Rubino previously represented Toyota in numerous patent litigation matters. Ex. A
`
`at ¶ 4, 7. This representation continued until his departure from Kenyon late summer 2015. Ex.
`
`A at ¶ 6. Thus, Toyota is a former client for purposes of conflict analysis. See Abney, 984 F.
`
`Supp. at 528 (E.D. Tex. 1997). Further, his current representation of Blitzsafe is plainly adverse
`
`to Toyota.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 4592
`
`C. Mr. Rubino Possesses Relevant Confidential Information
`
`In the course of his representation of Toyota, including over 1,500 hours billed in a two
`
`year period (Ex. A at ¶¶ 9-10), Mr. Rubino acquired confidential information of Toyota that is
`
`directly relevant to the present case.7
`
` As a result of his representation of Toyota, Mr. Rubino knows Toyota’s, its settlement
`
`strategies, its strategies for litigating in the Eastern District of Texas, its strategies for negotiating
`
`indemnification with suppliers and how that affects its case strategy, its IPR strategies, and its
`
`strategy for mediating before Judge Folsom. Mr. Rubino knows Toyota’s evaluation of trial
`
`witnesses in this case, and has studied those witnesses’ privileged documents. He’s even seen a
`
`privileged communication concerning Blitzsafe and the patents currently being asserted. Ex. A
`
`at ¶ 14.
`
`Presumably, Mr. Rubino will simply deny that he remembers this information, some of
`
`which was transmitted little more than a year ago. But such a denial would be far from
`
`sufficient; his exposure was pervasive, and spanned literally thousands of emails between
`
`Kenyon and Toyota, to say nothing of the internal emails discussing strategy issues. Ex. A at ¶¶
`
`13-25. By virtue of his prior representation of Toyota, as the submitted exhibits confirm, Mr.
`
`Rubino has an insider’s view to precisely how Toyota has and will assess the case, how it will
`
`determine its potential exposure, how that determination will factor into settlement
`
`7 As explained in paragraphs 11-13 of Exhibit A, Mr. Rubino was added to a Kenyon internal
`email list (or “listserv”) Kenyon attorneys used to communicate regarding the AVS
`litigations. The Kenyon attorney team that Mr. Rubino was on routinely copied this listserv
`address so that all members of the litigation team would receive emails about the cases,
`including communications between Kenyon attorneys and Toyota legal personnel. Mr.
`Rubino was added to the listserv on February 20, 2013 and remained on it until his departure
`from Kenyon. Ex. A at § 15. Mr. Rubino therefore received all emails sent to the listserv
`during this timeframe.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 4593
`
`considerations and discussions. He knows Toyota’s strengths and weaknesses, and how it has
`
`evaluated its own witnesses. He cannot now, under any reasonable interpretation of applicable
`
`ethics rules, use it against his former client.
`
`D. Mr. Rubino is Presumed to Have Disclosed Confidential Information
`
`Toyota need not actually demonstrate that Mr. Rubino has disclosed any of this
`
`confidential information to other members of Brown Rudnick – he is presumed to have done so.
`
`See Corrugated Container, 658 F.3d at 1346–47; In re Am. Airlines 972 F.2d at 614 n. 1.
`
`E.
`
`The Balancing Requirement Favors Disqualification
`
`In connection with deciding whether disqualification is appropriate, courts balance the
`
`ethical rules and the social interests at stake. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1314 (5th Cir.
`
`1995). Specifically, a court considers “ ‘whether a conflict has (1) the appearance of impropriety
`
`in general, or (2) a possibility that a specific impropriety will occur, and (3) the likelihood of
`
`public suspicion from the impropriety outweighs any social interests which will be served by the
`
`lawyer's continued participation in the case.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Dresser, 972 F.2d at 544).
`
`These factors all favor disqualification here. Mr. Rubino spent years obtaining
`
`confidential information regarding Toyota legal strategy for defending patent infringement
`
`lawsuits. He continued this even up to the point where he received privileged communications
`
`concerning Blitzsafe’s filing of the Complaint against Toyota in this very case. The ABA
`
`standards include the admonition that “lawyers should avoid ‘even the appearance of
`
`impropriety.’” Dresser, 972 F.2d at 543 (citation omitted). This goes well beyond merely
`
`giving the appearance of impropriety in general; this is an egregious violation of Toyota’s
`
`confidences, and threatens public trust in the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, clients would lose
`
`all faith in the confidentiality of their attorney communications if, as is the case here, the law
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 4594
`
`permitted those attorneys to abruptly switch firms only to sue the client in a case involving
`
`similar technology and issues, the same witnesses, and in the same court as litigations where the
`
`attorney previously represented the client (where the same mediator is being used). And to make
`
`it worse, Mr. Rubino was exposed to at least one email concerning analysis of this very
`
`litigation. Ex. A at ¶ 14.
`
`Lastly, there are no societal interests that would justify allowing Mr. Rubino or Brown
`
`Rudnick to avoid disqualification. While Plaintiff is sure to argue that disqualifying Brown
`
`Rudnick at this stage of the litigation would be unfair, Brown Rudnick and Mr. Rubino are
`
`squarely to blame for any prejudice. Brown Rudnick never approached Toyota counsel to
`
`inform them that Mr. Rubino had joined the firm, nor did it seek a waiver from Toyota
`
`concerning any conflict. Brown Rudnick can answer to its client about why it risked involving
`
`Mr. Rubino to the litigation during the heart of discovery; Toyota’s privilege and public
`
`confidence in the legal system cannot be destroyed because of Brown Rudnick’s unilateral
`
`decision.
`
`F.
`
`The Court Should Strike Toyota Deposition Testimony Taken Since Mr.
`Rubino Joined the Litigation
`
`Some of the damage as a result of Mr. Rubino’s participation in this litigation has already
`
`been done. Brown Rudnick has already deposed numerous Toyota witnesses, including Messrs.
`
`Hata and Inouye, who were the subject of the confidential memo and evaluation that Mr. Rubino
`
`had during his prior representation of Toyota. Blitzsafe’s future lawyers cannot benefit from that
`
`misuse of confidential information, even if Brown Rudnick is now removed from the case. The
`
`only way to prevent damage to Toyota’s interests is to strike the deposition testimony, and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 4595
`
`prohibit Brown Rudnick or McKool Smith from sharing it (or any other work product created
`
`since July 29, 2016) with any replacement counsel that Blitzsafe may select.
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Brown Rudnick should be disqualified from representing
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ J. Thad Heartfield
`
`William H. Mandir (pro hac vice)
`John F. Rabena (pro hac vice)
`Yoshinari Kishimoto (pro hac vice)
`Brian K. Shelton (pro hac vice)
`Fadi N. Kiblawi (pro hac vice)
`Margaret M. Welsh (pro hac vice)
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`(202) 293-7600
`
` J
`
` Thad Heartfield
`State Bar No. 09346800
`THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
`2195 Dowlen Rd
`Beaumont, TX 77706
`409-866-3318
`Fax: 409-866-5789
`Email: thad@heartfieldlawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Toyota Defendants
`
`
`14
`
`Plaintiff in this case.
`
`Dated: September 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/12/16 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 4596
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), I certify that on August 30, 2016, William Mandir,
`
`counsel for the Toyota defendants, personally conferred via telephone with Peter Lambrianakos,
`
`counsel for plaintiff Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, regarding the subject matter of this Motion. The
`
`discussion ended at an impasse, leaving open issues for the court to resolve.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/William H. Mandir
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing TOYOTA’S
`
`MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL via the Court’s CM/ECF system, per
`
`Local Rule CV-5(a)(3), on this 12th day of September, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ J. Thad Heartfield
`J. Thad Heartfield