SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON v. J-M MANUFACTURING

Respondent and Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Cal.July 11, 2016

No. 8232946 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTONLLP, SUPREME COURTFILED Plaintiffand Respondent, J-M MANUFACTURING CO., INC., JUL 11 2016 Frank A. McGuire ClerkDefendant and Appellant. Deputy After a Decision of the Court ofAppeal ofthe State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, Case No. B256314 The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. YC067332 The Honorable Stuart M.Rice, Presiding - JOINT MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATIONOF KEVIN S. ROSEN *Kent L. Richland (SBN 51413) Barbara W.Ravitz (SBN 86665) Robert A. Olson (SBN 109374) Jeffery E. Raskin (SBN 223608) GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP 5900 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (310) 859-7811 Fax: (310) 276-5261 krichland@gmsr.com Attorneysfor Defendant and Appellant J-M Manufacturing Company,Inc., dba JM Eagle *Kevin S. Rosen (SBN 133304) Theane Evangelis (SBN 243570) Bradley J. Hamburger (SBN 266916) Andrew G. Pappas (SBN 266409) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 . krosen@gibsondunn.com Attorneysfor Plaintiffand Respondent Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP e r e e Se ci ia ba lp No. 8232946 IN THE SUPREME COURTOF CALIFORNIA SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Plaintiffand Respondent, J-M MANUFACTURINGCO., INC., Defendant andAppellant. After a Decision of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, Case No. B256314 The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. YC067332 The Honorable Stuart M.Rice, Presiding - JOINT MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATIONOF KEVINS. ROSEN *Kent L. Richland (SBN 51413) Barbara W. Ravitz (SBN 86665) Robert A. Olson (SBN 109374) Jeffery E. Raskin (SBN 223608) GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP 5900 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (310) 859-7811 Fax: (310) 276-5261 krichland@gmsr.com Attorneysfor Defendant and Appellant J-M Manufacturing Company,Inc., dba JM Eagle *Kevin S. Rosen (SBN 133304) Theane Evangelis (SBN 243570) Bradley J. Hamburger (SBN 266916) Andrew G. Pappas (SBN 266409) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 krosen@gibsondunn.com Attorneysfor Plaintiffand Respondent Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP JOINT MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Sheppard Mullin filed a motion forjudicial notice on June 27, 2016 in whichit requested that this Court take judicial notice of certain documents of which the Court of Appeal had taken judicial notice pursuant to Sheppard Mullin’s request. Because the parties agree that this Court should have before it all of the documents judicially noticed by the Court of Appeal, the parties file this joint motion, whichrequests that this Court also take judicial notice of those documents of which the Court of Appeal had taken judicial notice pursuantto J-M’s request. Accordingly, pursuant to Evidence Codesection 452 andrule 8.520(g) of the California Rules of Court, Sheppard Mullin and J-M jointly move and respectfully request that this Court take judicial notice of the following documents attached as Exhibits 1 through 4 to the concurrently filed Declaration of Kevin S. Rosen (the “Joint MJN Declaration”) in addition to the documents identified in Sheppard Mullin’s motion forjudicial noticefiled on June 27, 2016: 1. The Declaration ofK. Luan Tran in Support ofDefendant’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award (the “Tran Declaration”), filed in the trial court on February 24, 2014 (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Joint MJN Declaration); 2. Exhibit I to the Tran Declaration: Counter-Expert Report of Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., submitted to the to the arbitration panel in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-MManufacturing Company, Ine., No. 1220045609(the “Arbitration Panel”) on October 25, 2013 (attached as Exhibit 2 to the Joint MJN Declaration); 3. Exhibit J to the Tran Declaration: Supplemental Declaration of Camilla Eng in Support ofJ-M Manufacturing Company’s Reply Arbitration Brief submitted to the Arbitration Panel on October 25, 2013 (attached as Exhibit 3 to the Joint MJN Declaration); 4. Exhibit K to the Tran Declaration: Supplemental Declaration ofK. Luan Tran In Support of J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.’s Reply Arbitration Brief submitted to the Arbitration Panel on October 25, 2013 (attached as Exhibit 4 to the Joint MJN Declaration). The parties agree that foregoing documents, in addition to the documents identified in Sheppard Mullin’s June 27, 2016 motion forjudicial notice, are appropriate subjects ofjudicial notice and comply with thecriteria for judicial notice under the California Rules of Court: I. These documentsare relevantto the appealfor the purpose ofgiving this Court a complete accounting ofthe facts before the Arbitration Panel and the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252 (a)(2)(A).) 2. Judicial notice ofthese documentsis proper because each is a record filed in the trial court. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d) [judicial notice may be taken of “[r]ecords of (1) any court ofthis state”].) These documents were also filed in the Court of Appeal, which took judicial notice of these documents. (See May 1, 2015 Order.) 3. These documentsare an expert report and supplemental declarations that J-M filed with the Arbitration Panel that correspondto expert reports and supplementdeclarations that Sheppard Mullin filed with the Arbitration Panel (and which Sheppard Mullin asked this Court to take judicial notice ofon June 27, 2016). 4. The parties agree that this Court should have beforeit all of the documentsthat the Court ofAppealjudicially noticed. Accordingly, J-M does not oppose Sheppard Mullin’s June 27, 2016 motion for judicial notice, and Sheppard Mullin does not oppose this Court taking judicial notice of the documents submitted with this joint motion. 5. None of the documents submitted with this joint motion relates to proceedings occurring after the judgmentthat is the subject of this appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2)(D).) DATED: Junedd, 2016 DATED: JuneZ# 2016 Respectfully submitted, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP By: Fen /Co Kevin S. Rosen Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Respectfully submitted, GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP By: Ace.- Kent L. Richland Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., dba JM Eagle TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TL INTRODUCTION... sssssssssesessssessssssevessecssssssstsssessssassisecsssissessastatesessseeeeecees 1 TL. ARGUMENT... ..ssssesessessssssssssesecsssessssesssssssssessssssstsisesssssesesssittivecsssseeescese 2 TIL. CONCLUSION.vessssccssssssssssssssssssssesssssssssssesesssssssssvesssssessssssssiseseseseeeeceeee 3 DECLARATIONOF KEVIN S. ROSEN ..veseccccscssssssssessssessssssescetesssseeeecesee 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park & Open-Space District (2009) 46 Cal.4th 282 oo.oceccccccccccscecscsssestssssecssssestatssseasseecstsesesesseeseess 2 Statutes Evid. Code, § 452 .cccccececcsssssssessssscssseessssessavsseesasscesvessussasaescsevavsvasseveveseee 1 Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (G) ..cccccccsccccseecssscesststevsssseerseasesscsseasacssssessesesssecees 2 Rules Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a).....ccccccesssssscececcsceevsestsscsesessecsuceceescecsees I Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2)(A) vo.ecceccscccescesescssescscstsceesesesseceesscecseces 2 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2)(C) w.ccccceccsscsccsescscscssscesssscscsaceceeseececes 2 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(g) ....ccccccccsccsecescscesessscscseecssssscsessveseeeeeesees 1 il MEMORANDUMOFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION The Court of Appeal took judicial notice of two sets of documents submitted to the Arbitration Panel, one submitted by Sheppard Mullin and the other by J-M. (See May 1, 2015 Order.) Sheppard Mullin filed a motionfor judicial notice on June 27, 2016 in which it requested that this Court take judicial notice of the same documents it asked the Court of Appeal to judicially notice. Because the parties agree that this Court should have before it all of the documents judicially noticed by the Court of Appeal, so as to ensure that the record related to proceedings before the Arbitration Panel and the Court of Appeal is complete, the parties have agreed to file this joint motion, which requests that this Court take judicial notice ofthe remainder of the documentsjudicially noticed by the Court ofAppeal. J-M doesnot oppose Sheppard Mullin’s June 27, 2016 motion for judicial notice, and Sheppard Mullin does not oppose this Court taking judicial notice of the documents submitted with this joint motion. This joint motion seeksjudicial notice of documents that J-M filed in the trial court; specifically, the February 24, 2014 Declaration ofK. Luan Tran in Support of Defendant’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, which was accompanied by an expert report and two supplemental declarations that J-M filed with the Arbitration Panel. These materials—which the Court ofAppeal judicially noticed—satisfy the requirements for judicial notice under the California Rules of Court, rules 8.252(a) and 8.520(g), because they are relevantto this proceeding; they are proper subjects ofjudicial notice under Evidence Code section 452; and they do notrelate to proceedings occurring after the judgment that is the subject matter ofthis proceeding. The parties therefore jointly move and respectfully request that this Court take judicial notice of Exhibits 1 through 4 to the Declaration ofKevin S. Rosen. Il. ARGUMENT The materials of whichthe parties seek judicial notice meetall of the applicable requirements under the California Rules of Court: First, they are relevant for the purpose ofgiving this Court a complete accounting of the facts before the Arbitration Panel and before the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2)(A).) Becausethe attached materials were before the Court ofAppeal whenit issuedits ruling, the parties request that this Court take judicial notice of the same material to ensure that this Court considersall material before the Court ofAppeal. (See Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park & Open-Space District (2009) 46 Cal.4th 282, 291, fn. 6 [“The Court ofAppeal granted the District’s first request for judicial notice .... Plaintiff recently filed a request forjudicial notice ofthis same materialin order to ensure this court considers it. We grantthis request.”].) Second,judicial notice of these documents is proper becauseeachis a record filed in the trial court. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d) [judicial notice may betakenof“[r]ecords of (1) any court ofthis state”].) Finally, none of the materials to be noticedrelatesto proceedingsthat have occurred after the orders and judgments that are the subject of this appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2)(C)). The earliest order at issue here is the Arbitration Panel’s January 30, 2014 award, but the materials to be noticeddo notrelate to any proceedings that took place after that date. Ill. CONCLUSION For these reasons,the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Joint Motion for Judicial Notice. DATED: June d&?, 2016 DATED: June2%, 2016 Respectfully submitted, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP py: flower Ann Kevin S. Rosen Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Respectfully submitted, GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP By: edi Q "Kent L. Richland Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant J-M Manufacturing Company,Inc., dba JM Eagle DECLARATIONOF KEVIN S. ROSEN I, Kevin S. Rosen declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and am a partnerat the law firm ofGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, attorneysfor Plaintiff-Respondent Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. [have personal knowledgeofthefacts stated herein, andifcalledasa witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. I make this declaration in support of the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Notice. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of The Declaration of K. Luan Tran in Support of Defendant’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award(the “Tran Declaration”),filed in the trial court on February 24, 2014. | 3. Attached heretoas Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy ofExhibit I to the Tran Declaration (Counter-Expert Report of Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., submitted to the to the arbitration panel in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP y. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., No. 1220045609 (the “Arbitration Panel”) on October 25, 2013). 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit J to the Tran Declaration (Supplemental Declaration ofCamilla Eng in Support of J-M Manufacturing Company’s Reply Arbitration Brief submitted to the Arbitration Panel on October 25, 2013). 5. Attachedhereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy ofExhibit K to the Tran Declaration (Supplemental Declaration ofK. Luan Tran In Support of J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.’s Reply Arbitration Brief submitted to the Arbitration Panel on October 25, 2013); I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoingis true andcorrect andthat this declaration was executed on this 94"day of June, 2016. Hicir Focee— Kevin S. Rosen EXHIBIT 1 - 0 Oo TD KN WH Bh WY w e — 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23], 24 25 26 27 28 n ” ee LEE TRAN& LIANG LLP. K. Luan Tran (Bar No. 193808) 601. S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3900 ; ! Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-612-3737 Facsimile: 213-612-3773 CONE OR IRAEeee See aSSeton Attomeys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant “ J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY,INC., FEB 24 20th D/B/A/ IM EAGLE Sheni R. , Execitive Gllicer/Clerk By M. Loretto~Pilarca, Deputy SUPERIGR COURT FOT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SOUTHWESTDISTRICT —TORRANCE COURTHOUSE SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & Case No. YC067332 HAMPTON,LLP, Judge: Hon. Stuart M. Rice Plaintiffand Cross-Defendant, Department: B v. DECLARATION OF K. LUAN TRAN IN J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY,INC., | SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT'S PETITIOND/B/A/ JM EAGLE, TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD Defendant and Cross-Complainant. Hearing: Date: March 18, 2014 Time: 8:30am. -0- TRAN DEC. ISO PETITIONTO VACATE t s O o oO o N T D H W H F P W H N Y N S N H & w N H N H 8 h O N ON D OR D o o m o m e e m t o x y A tm B B O N H KH S o w W R I A A P B H A S DECLARATION OF K. LUAN TRAN I, K. Luan Tran, deciare as follows: 1, Tam a member ofthe State Bar of California, and a partner ofLee Tran & Liang LLP, counsel for Respondent and Cross-Complainant J-M Manufacturing Company,Inc. (“IM”). [ have been JM’s lead counsel in previous proceedings in this matter before this Court and the Court ofAppeal, and in the underlying arbitration before JAMS (‘Arbitration’). I state the facts in this declaration based on the best ofmy own personal knowledge and/or documents I reviewed and,ifcalled upon to do so, could and would testify competently as to thefollowing matters. 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copyofthe Declaration ofK. Luan Tran In Support ofJM’s Opening Arbitration Brief (and exhibits) filed in the Arbitration. ~ 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy ofthe Declaration ofCamilla Eng In Support ofJM’s Opening Arbitration Brief(and exhibits) filed in the Arbitration.- 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy ofPlaintiff and Cross-Defendant Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP’s (“Sheppard”) DemandforArbitration (with exhibits) filed in the Arbitration. 5. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of JM’s Petition for Writ of Mandate filed with the Court ofAppeal. 6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copyofthe Court ofAppeal’s Order Denying JM’s Petition for Writ ofMandate, 7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy ofJM’s Response and Counterclaims filed in the Arbitration. 8. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy ofJM’s Opening Arbitration Brief filed in the Arbitration. 9. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy ofJM’s Reply Arbitration Brief’ filed in the Arbitration. 10. Attached as Exhibit| is a true and correct copy ofthe Counter Expert Report of Professor Geoffrey Hazard filed in the Arbitration. -1- TRAN DEC.ISO PETITION TO VACATE 2 O o C o Q D H D U m w m W N Y = N Y NH N N Y H B K O N N N D N m m m e e e ceo A A P O H AB SF C a e D H A a A E R E DS B T S il. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy ofthe Supplemental Declaration of Camilla Eng In Support ofJM’s Reply Arbitration Brieffiled in the Arbitration. 12. Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy ofthe Supplemental Declaration of K. Luan Tran In Support ofJM’s Reply Arbitration Brieffiled in the Arbitration. 13. Attached as Exhibit Lis a true and correct copyofthe Further Supplemental Declaration ofCamilla Eng submitted in the Arbitration. The arbitrators denied the permission to file this document. 14. The arbitrators held a final hearing on December 9, 2013. Pursuantto the parties’ agreement, there was no live witness examination or cross-examinations at the final hearing, and the arbitrators only entertained oral arguments by the parties’ counsel. Attached as Exhibit M isa. true and correct copy ofJM’s Power Point presentation at the final hearing. 15. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy ofthe Final Award issued in the Arbitration. | 16. Attached as Exhibit O is a true and correct copyofthe Stipulation Regarding Accounting filed in the Arbitration. I declare the above to be true and correct under penalty ofperjury under California laws. Executed in Los Angeles, California on February 24, 2014. ae—J> ae K Luan Tran -2- TRAN DEC. ISO PETITION TO VACATE y 3 EXHIBIT2 EXHIBIT I IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION - JAMS SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,LCP, a limited lability partnership, Co moplainant. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.» @ Delaware Corporation, d/b/a IM Bicy an DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Responde nt. s FACTURING COMP, ; INC., a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a. JM Eagle, Cr oss-Complainant, v. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,LLP,a Jimuted liability partnership, and DOES 21 through 40, tnclusive, Cross-Respondent. Reference Nu. $220045609 Hon. Gary L. Taylor (ret) Hon. Charles S. Vogel (ret) James W. Colbert, [H1, Esq. COUNTER-EXPERT REPORT OF PROFESSOR GEOFFREYC. HAZARD,JR. COUNTER-EXPERT REPORT OF PROFESSOR GEOFFREY C, HAZARD,IR. A. Background Tam Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Hastings College of the Law. University of Califomia; Sterling Professor ofLaw Emeritus, Yale University; and Director (executive director} Emeritus of the American Law Institue. [| was Reporter for the American Bat Association Model Rules of Professor Conduct; a member of the ABA Ethics2000 Commission which did a comprehensive review of the Model Rules; and supervisor and direct participant in che formulation ofthe Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers. I have been a memberofthe California bar since 1960, and previously was a memberofthe bars ofConnecticut, Oregon and Pennsylvania. For nearly $0 years I have studied, done research, taught, and practiced in the field of professional ethics. [ maintain an active consulting practice in matters ofprofessional ethics and.civil litigation. [ am special counsel to several law firmsin matters of ethics and Senior Advisor tothe ABA Section of Business Law in matters of legal ethics. Among my publications in the field of professional ethics include the following books ortreatises: Ethics in the Practice ofLaw (1978); The Legal Profession: Responsibility and Regutation (3d ed. 1994; editor, with Deborah Rhode); The Law of Lawyering: A Flandbook on the Model Rules ofProfessional Conduct (3d ed. 2000, with annual supplements, with William Hodes and Peter Jarvis); The Law and Ethics ofLawyering (4th ed. 2005; with Susan Koniak, Roger Cramton and George Cohen); Professional Responsibility and Regulation (Foundation Press, 2002) (with Deborah Rhode); Legal Ethics: A Comparative Study (Stan. U. Press.2004) (with Angelo Dondi). A copy of my resumeis attached. Page 2 B. Engagement [ have been engaged by Lee Tran Liang & Wang LLP (*LTLW”), counsel for J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“J-M"), to provide an opinion in this matter in response to the Expert Report by Professor Lawrence Marshall. [ am being compensated for my work. Prior to my engagement on or about October 1, 2013, { have never been engaged by LTL.W or JM. As the basis of the opinion,| have relied on the matters set Forth in Sheppard, Mullin’s Opening Brief With Related Declarations andin JLM’s Opening Arbitration Brief. fn particular I have relied on the Declaration of Mr. Ronald Ryland, General Counsel of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hanipton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”) and the Professor Marshall’s Report. C.of In summary, in my opinion the conduct of Sheppard Mullin was an egregious violation ofits duties of loyalty to and communication with J-M, and that there is no basis for the contention that it acted in “good faith.” (1) Sheppard Mullin, in discussion with J-M as a prospective client in February 2010, about engagement in the Qui Tam case and in connection with its engagementletter, failed to disclose critically important facts aboutits relationship with South Tahoe Public Utility District (“South Tahoe”): (i That South Tahoe, which was a claimanton the opposing side ofthelitigation, was a long-time and current client ofSheppard Mullin; (ii) That South Tahoe, as was known to Sheppard Multin’s lawyer handling the South Tahoe matters, was not a “sophisticated client”; cH) That South Tahoe had provided only a general “advance waiver” some years earlier, without independentlegal advice; Page 3 (iv) Aadhence that there was a teal risk that, ifSheppard Mutlin undertook representation of J-M. South Tahoe would seek disqualification on account of Sheppard Mullin’s breach ofthe duty of foyalty under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310. Such a disqualification obviously would be seriously damaging to J-M. (2) Sheppard Mullin failed to disclose the South Tahoesituation described above after J-Mbecome a client in March 2010, when the engagementletter was signed. . (3) As part of the engagementletter Sheppard Mullin affirmatively deceived J-M by specifying an advanceof the conflict with South Tahoe, instead of apresent The advance waivernecessarily implied that there was no present conflict, which Sheppard Mullin knew to be false. (4) Whether Sheppard Mullin believed that the advance waiver signed by South Tahoe was validis irrelevant with respect to the firm's obligation to disclose South Tahoe to J-M. Sheppard Mullin had an independentduty to disclose all material information to J-M. The fact that Sheppard Mullin was concurrently representing an adverse party in the Qid Tam action was clearly material to the firm’s representation of J-M. (5) Sheppard Mullin kept the South Tahoe situation secret for over a year, until South Tahoe raised objection about the conflict, Even after South Tahoeraised the conflict issue, Sheppard Mullin kept this issue secret from J-M for about 50 days and only informed J-M about it when South Tahoe was aboutto fileits Motion to Disqualify. (6) In responseto the Motion Sheppard Mullin gave J-M optimistic advice about the seriousness ofthe situation. In connection with Judge Wu's bifurcation proposal, Sheppard Mullin gave J-M contradictory advice about how to respond. Page 4 {7) All the foregoing maneuvers were conducted under the direction of direction of Sheppard Mullin’s General Counsel, Mr. Ronald Ryland. Mr. Ryland’s background and experience made him an expert in matters of legal ethics, aceording to which he necessarily knew or should have known about Sheppard Multin’s obligation to disclose South Tahoe to J-M prior to the engagement. Fle should have also realized the risks to J-M presented by the South Tahoe situation. Coupled with Sheppard Miudlin’s coacealment of the confict to its vwn partacr in charge of the South Tahue account, as well as the firm's subsequent concealmentofthe conflict when this issue was first brought up by South Tahoe. the Sheppard Mulia conduct must be considered deliberate as well as sustained deception. (8) Accordingly, in my opinion forfeiture offees is fully warranted, as provided in decisional law andthe Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers. Established case law, recently confirmed by the California and federal appellate courts (including the Ninth Circuit), made clear that a representation tainted by conflict .of interest constitutes a serious breach of an attorney’s duty of loyalty and thus, the attorney was not allowed to retain fees, even on a quantum meruit basis. (9) The supposed remedy of allowing Sheppard Mullins to retain fees on a quantum meruit basis is further inappropriate, given the deliberate and sustained deception ofIM. (10) Where the remedy sought is forfeiture of fees, as opposed to compensatory damages, the client is not required to show actual damages. Even so,J- M suffered actual damagein having the Qui Tam litigation derailed and havingto find yet another successor law firm to handle its defense, and bring that counsel “up to speed.” (10) Sheppard Mullin’s deception may also subject the firm’s to punitive damages. Page 5 D. Discussion She d Multin Breach [ts Duty of Loyalty and Disclosure to J-M Repeatedly Failing to Disclose the South Tahoe Representation For some years prior to 2010 Sheppard Mullin represented South Tahoe Public Unility District (South Tahoe”) in matters of employment law. There had been no indication by either Sheppard Multin or South Tahoethatthe client-lawyer relationship had terminated. [n fact, Sheppard Mullin continue to represent South Tahoein generat employment matters shortly after it was retained by J-M. In the roatter involved in this Arbitration Sheppard Mullin proceeded onthe basis that South Tahoe was a currentclient. South Tahoe had signed an “advance conflict waiver” at the time Sheppard Mullinfirst represented that entity. South Tahoe was a small public corporation with modestlegal needs; it had no internal legal departmentalthough it had access to other outside counsel. There was no indication that South Tahoe consulted outside counsel regarding the waiver; the waiver was part of an engagementletter signed by oneofits non-lawyer officers, J-M was sued in a Qzd Tam action beginningin 2006. The lawsuit posed serious (“bet the ranch") financial risk for J-M. The defense had been handled by anotherfirm until January 2010, when that firm was discharged after making a serious blunder concerning privileged documents. J-M interviewed several firms in seeking replacement counsel, focusing on Sheppard Mullin in February 2010. Intensive negotiations concerning the engagement were conducted between Sheppard Mullin and J-M’s General Counsel, Camilia Eng. Sheppard Mullin, aware that there were many claimants in the Qui Tam case, had donea conflicts check in connection with its prospective representation ofJ-M. The check showedthat South Tahoe, one of the claimants, was a client, hence Page 6 10 presenting a conflict ofinterest problem. The conflicts problem was referred to Mr. Ryland, Sheppard Mullin’s General Counsel. Mr. Ryland determined that the representation of J-M would be proper by reason of South Tahoe's advance waiver, assuming that 8 proper waiver was also obtained from J-M. Sheppard Mullin neverdisclosed the South Tahoe representation to J-M, and also conealed the conflict check result to its own partnec ia charge of South Tahoe. An advance waiver was included in the engagement letter between Sheppard Mullin and J-M. However, no waiver of present conflict was included in the engagement, even though a present conflict with Suuth Tahoe would arise immediately upon Sheppard Mullin’s entering the engagement with J-M. Presenting the problem to J-M as one of advance waiver was deceptive, implying that some unknown conflict problem mightlie in the future, whereas in fact the conflict posed by South Tahoe was thenand there. In the engagementnegotiations with Ms. Eng there was nodisclosure about the South Tahoesituation. Any conflict waiver, presentor future, requires “adequate disclosure”as the basis ofa client’s consent. The lack ofdisclosure compoundedthe deception that was involved in posing the South Tahoe situation as a potential future conflict rather than as.a pending present conflict. Here, even if the advance waiver is somehow considered to have covered the present conflict that was actually involved, in my opinion there was a serious breach of SheppardMullin’s disclosure obligations concerning the conflict. The supposedly future conflict with South Tahoe was not hypothetical and conjectural: [t was real and immediate. The fact that Sheppard Mullin was representing an adverseparty to J-M, even an unrelated matter, is clearly a material fact that should have been disclosed to J-M because Sheppard Mullin’s concurrentrepresentation of adverse parties putitin a conflict of interest situation. Freemont Indem. Co. v. Freemont General Corp., 143 Cal.App.4® 50, 64 (2006) (“An attorney’s dual representation ofparties in [the] circumstances [covered by Rule 3-310] presents a conflict of interest even if the two Page 7 11 matters are completely unrelated and there is no risk that confidences obtainedin one matter could be used in-the other”). Whether Sheppard Mullin believed at the time that the advance waiversigned by South Tahoe was effective, the firm still had an independent and obvious obligation to inform its prospective client J-M that a conflict check had revealed that the firm was concurrently representing an adverse party in the Qui Tam action. As noted, this is clearly a material fact. Therefore, Sheppard Mullin's failure, during the engagement negotiations in February 2010, to apprise J-M ofthe risks involvedin the conflict was serious breach of Sheppard Mullins’ obligations of disclosure under California RPC 3-310 to J-M as a potential client and as a client thereafter. See California RPC 3-310 (A) (1) and (2) (defining “informed Written Consent” as disclosing in writing “the relevant circumstances” and “reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences”to the client). Moreover, the South Tahoe advance waiver was atrisk of being ineffective, as. explained above, and the J-M waiver was at risk of being technically ineffective (because framed as an advance waiver) and inoperative as a present waiver (because of inadequate disclosure). In my opinion it was reasonably foreseeable that South Tahoe could moveto disqualify Sheppard Mullins for conflict of interest, contending thatits advance waiver was ineffective. South Tahoe threatened to do so in a yearlater, in March 2011, and filed such a motion a month later. In my opinion somethinglike this chain of events was risk reasonably foreseeable in February 2010 when Sheppard Mullin was negotiating its engagement with J-M. Forthat reason the firm had an obligation to disclose the South Tahoesituation to J-M. It had the same obligation when South Tahoe raised the issue of conflict in early 201 1.Sheppard Mullins had not advised J-M about the conflict during the months following the engagement in March 2010, nor did it advise J-M when South Tahoeraised the conflict with Sheppard Mullin in March 2011. Disclosure was made only shortly Page 8 12 before South Tahoe’s Motion to Disqualify was filed. In ensuing correspondence with J-M, Sheppard Mullin down-played the Motion as a litigation tactic and predicted that it would be defeated. Ifthe J-Mwaiver was ineffective, J-M directly suffered from a conflict of interest. In myopinion the J-M waiver could have been held inetfeetive because the conflict was a present one, nota future conflict, and because no disclosure had been madeas a basis for J-M’s informed consent. ] concur with Professor Marshall’s opinion that aa client could give a valid advance waiver if one had been property solicited. But, as explained above, the situation was a present conflict. Evenif the situation were considered as a prospective conflict, the prospect was immediately imminent and fully known to Sheppard Mullin. Oneitherinterpretation, disclosure to J-M of the South Tahoesituation was required for “informed consent.” [ also note that Sheppard Mullin did not even disclose this situation to its own partner in charge of the South Tahoe account.' One can ponder why Sheppard Mullin did not make these disclosures. An objective observer would note that J-M might well decline to engage Sheppard Mullin if it was apprised ofthe conflict situation. Ms. Eng, J-M’s General Counsel, has said so, and that its general policy was against waivers. Also, J-M had just comeoff the “" Professor Marshall devotes a good portion ofhis report to challenge Judge Wu's finding that the advance waiver signed by South Tahoe was ineffective. Although [believe that Judge Wu wes correct (see below), the effectiveness ofthe South Tahoe waiver. is not relevant in determining whether Sheppard Mullin acted appropriately vis-a-vis FM Indeed, Sheppard Mullin still had an independent duty to disclose to J-M that the firm's contlict check-had revealed that South Tahoe, an adverse party in the qui tam action, was a concurrent client of the firm. : Regardless, it is my opnion that the South Tahowweiveris invalid. With respect, { do not believe, as Professor Marshall suggests, that California law has accepted that advance waivers are effective when open-ended in duration and scope, sgned an unsophisticated client who is given no legal independent advice about its potential consequences, Rather, there were significant California authorities that South Tahoe could cite that would support its Motion for Disqualification. These include: Fremonr Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gene Corp., 143 Cal App.4th (2006), and Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Ine., 163-Cal.App.4ihd 10.(2008), specifically on waivers, and Flatt v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 275, 289 (1994), concerning the basic obtlgution of loyafty. These authorities all past-date (989, the date on which Professor Marshallstates that California had accepted the concept of advance waivers. : Page 9 13 very unhappy experience ofterminating the firm that previously had been handling the Qui Tailitigation, Sheppard Mullin’s conduct after South Tahoe raised the conflict issue and filed the Motion to Disquaiify is equally problematic. In response to South Tahoe's raising the issue and then filing the Motion to Disqualify, Sheppard Mullin tried all kinds of maneuvers: Failing to disclose to J-M for nearly 50 days that South Tahve hadraised the conflict issue and threatened disqualification; Failing to disclose to J-M that Sheppard Mullin had voluntarily erected an ethical wall in response to South Tahoe’s concerns; Suggesting that it drop South Tahoe as a client, as it had attempted in American Airlines v. Sheppard Mullin, 96 Cal.App.4™ 1017 (2002) (“like a hot potato”); Downplaying the Motionas litigation tactic and predicting that it would be defeated; — Proposing continued concurrent representation of South Tahoe (with 40 free hours of legal services) without disclosing the proposal to J-M; Engaging legal malpractice expert counsel to represent the firm without adivising J-M to seek its own independent counsel; and After engaging malpractice counsel, Sheppard Mullin ignoredits earlier advice and gave J-M contradictory advice about bifurcating the underlying litigation. in sum, in my opinion it is a legitimate inference that the South Tahoe situation was not disclosed because it might have jeopardized the engagement with J-M. On that basis, the conduct of the firm was not simply in good faith reliance on the South Tahoe advance waiver. On the contrary, it was a studied and sustainedeffort to conceal from its client a conflict situation that obviously posed serious risk to the properand loyal representation ofJM. Page [0 14 All this was done under the director of Mr. Ryland, an expert in legalethics, {t was not a situation sometimes encountered, where the lawyers misunderstand the ethics rules, or where there is a breakdown in internal communication in the firm. The conflicts problem posed by South Tahoe was referred to Mr. Ryland and the responsive Sheppard Mullion strategy performed underhis direction. Damages In my opnion, Sheppard Mullin engaged in a clear and serious breach ofits duty of loyalty and disclosure to J-M mandating the complete forfeiture of fees under established jurisprudence and the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers §37. One ofthe leading cases in this area is Silbiger v. Prudence Bonds Corporation, 180 F.2d 917, 920-921 (2™ Cir. 1950), in which Judge Learned Hand reaffirmed the following long-established rule: Certainly by the beginning of the Seventeenth Century it had become a common-place that an attorney must not represent opposedinterests; and the usual consequence has been that he is debarred from receiving any fee from cither, no matter how successful his labors. Nor will the court hear him urge, or let him prove, that in fact the conflict of his loyalties has had no influence upon his conduct; the prohibition is absolute and the consequenceis a forfeiture ofall pay. California courts have consistenly confirmed that the representation ofclients in violation of conflict of interest rules is in itself'a “serious” or “egregious” ethical breach warranting complete fee forfeiture, and that the offending attorney is not entitled to quatum meruit payment. In Huskinson & Brown, LLP v. Wolf, 32 Cal.4th 453, 463 (2004), the California Supreme Court acknowledged “cases in which [California] courts have disallowed quantum meruit recovery to attorneys who violated one ofthe Rules of Professionaf Conduct. Those cases [...] involved violations of a rule that proscribed the very conduct for which compensation was Page 11 145 sought, i.c., the rule prohibiting attomeys from engaging in conflicting representation or accepting professional employment adverseto the interests of a client or former client without the written consent of both parties.” Recently, in Fair v. Bakhtiari, (95 Cal.App.4th (135, 1161 (20L1), the Court confirmed that under California decisional law, the “ violation of a rule that constitutes a serious breachoffiduciary duty, such as a conflictof interest that goes to the heart of the attorney-clientrelationship, warrants denial of quantum meruit recovery.” See alsu Rodriguez v. Disner, 688 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2012) ("The representation of clients with conflicting interests and without informed consentis a particularly egregious ethical violation that may be a proper basis for complete denial of fees"). I cespectfully disagree with Professor Marshall that fee forfeiture is not warranted here because J-M did not suffer actual damages from Sheppard Mullin’s ethical breaches. Where, as here, the requestedrelief is fee forfeiture (as opposed to compensatory damages), proofofactual damagesis not required. {n Fair, 195 Cal.App. 4"at 1153, the Court explained as follows: “An attorney mayviolate the statute and breach his or her fiduciary duties to the client without causing the client. damages. {t makes sense to require proof of darmages where the client seeks compensatory damages as a tort remedy for breachoffiduciary duty, but notifthe client seeks only forfeiture of fees. The purpose ofcompensatory damages is to make plaintiffs whole for harm caused by defendants... Forfeiture of legal fees serves several different purposes.It deters attomey misconduct and recognizes that damage caused by attomey misconductis often difficult to assess... It prevents fiduciaries from profiting from their fiduciary breach and disloyalty... Like compensatory damages,it compensates clients for harm they have suftered, butit reflects not the harms the clients suffer from the tainted representation, but the decreased value of the representationitself" (citations omtitted). Be that as it may, J-M was harmed by Sheppard Mullin’s ethical breaches. J-M was forced to disruptits defense to find yet another {aw firm to defend the company in the underlying action,and incurred costs in the process so that the new firm could “get up to speed.” Page 12 16 Finally, the fact that Sheppard Mullin’s Failure to disclose South Tahoe was calculated and sustained in my opinion is a basis as well for punitive damages. DATED: October / Co 2013 , ay NY Geoffiey C.flozan, Ic. Page 13 17 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 1 CURRICULUM VITAE 5/23/13 GEOSTFREY C. RAZARD, JR Miller Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law Trustee Professor of Law Emexitus, University of Pennsylvania ‘ paw School Sterling Professor of Law Emeritus, Yale Uuiversity Director Emeritus, American Law Institute Address: 2263 California Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Tel:415-292-6535 (home) ; 415-565-4809 (office} Fax: 415-292-2304 : Email: hazardg@ccshastings.edu Hastings College of the Law 200 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102 EDUCATION Swarthmore College, B.A. 1953 (Phi Beta Kappa) Columbia University, LL.B. 1954 (Columbia Law Review) PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS Member, California State Bar Admitted to practice: Oregon, 1954; California, 1960; Connecticut, 1982; Pennsylvania, 1994 Practiced in Oregon, 1954-57; Deputy Legislative Counsel, State of Oregon, 1956-57; Executive Secretary, Oregon Legislative Interim Committee on Judicial Administration, 1957-58 Executive Director, American Bar Foundation, 1964-70 Consultant, American Bar Association Special Committee on Code of Judicial Conduct, 1970-72 Reporter, American Bar Association Special Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration, 1971-77 Reporter, American Law Institute, Restatement of Judgments, Second, 1973-81 Reporter, American Bar Association Special Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards, 1978-983 18 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 2 Reporter, Committee on Sthical Standards, National Association of Bond Counsel, 1333-84 Director, Amarican Law Insticute, 1984-1999 Reporter, American Law Insticute and International Organization for Unification of Private Law, Principles of Transnational civil Procedure, 1999-2995 Member and Consulcant; Standing Committse on Rules of Peactice and Procedure, Judicial Conferance of the United Scates, 139S4- Member, Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Mass Torts, 1937-39 Member, American Bar Association Resource Team for High Profile Trials 1996-1998 Member, American Bar Association Commission on Ethics2000, 1997-2902 Member, Associazione Italiana fra gli Studiosi del Processo Civile, 1998- Member, American Bar Association Task Force on Federal Preemption 2008-2010 Senior Adviser, American Bar AsSociation, Section of Business Law, 2007-09; Emeritus 2009- ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS Miller Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law, 2005- Trustee Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania, 1994-2009 Professor of Law, Yale University, 1971-94; Sterling Professor of Law Emeritus 1994- Associate Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, 1958-61; Professor of Law, 1961-64 Visiting Professor, University of Michigan, 1963 Professor of Law, University of Chicago, 1964-71 Visiting Professor, Stanford University, 1974 Acting Dean, Yale School of Organization and Management, 1980-81; Associate Dean, 1979-80; Deputy Dean, 1981-82 Visiting Professor, Universite d'Aixz-Marseille, 1982 Visiting Professor, Harvard University, 1983 Visiting Professor, University of Arizona, 1997-2001 TEACHING SUBJECTS Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics, Federal Jurisdiction BOARD MEMBERSHIPS -+ 19 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. . Page 3 Board of Trustees, Supreme Court Historical Society, 1989-2004 Board of Directors, Avatar Holdings, Inec., 1980-94 Board of Directors, Smyth, Sanford & Gerard Professional Liability, L.L.c. 1995-97 Metaber, Board of Directors, Friends of the Library of the Supreme Court of Israel 1998- Board of Governors, International Insolvency Institute, 2004-2010 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Member, Administrative Conference of United States, 1972-78 Adviser, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Subcommittee on Code of Judicial Conduct, 1988-89 ; Member, Board of Overseers, Institute for Civil Justice, RAND Coxrp.,1985~-90 Advisory Council, Trinity Church (New York} Center for Ethics and Corporate Policy, 1983-1990 Legal Advisory Committee, New York Stock Exchange, 1989-92 Member, American Bar Association Committee on Professional Discipline, 1985-91 Member, American Bar Association, Committee on Lawyers' - Responsibility for Client Protection, 1991-1994 Member, National Association of Corporate Directors, Blue Ribbon Commission, 2005 Member, California State Bar, American Bar Ass'n, American Law Institute, National Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n, Fellows of American Bar Foundation, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society PROFESSIONAL AWARDS American Bar Foundation, Research Award, 1985 American Bar Foundation, William Keck Foundation Award,1997 Columbia University School of Law Association, Medal for Excellence, 1999 American Judicature Society, Outstanding Contributions to Promoting Effective Administration of Justice. 1999 Ceremony of Salute, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1999 Gold Medal, International Insolvency Institute, 2004 American Bar Association Section of Legal Education, Kutak Award, 2005 American Bar Association, Michael. Franck Award, 2008 American Law Institute, Distinguished Service Award, 2013 -+ IN Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 4 HONORARY DEGREES M.A., Yale University 1971 LL.D., Gonzaga University, 1985 LL.O., University of San Diego, 1985 LL.O., Swartomore College, 1982 LL.D., Illinois Institute of Technology, 1930 -, Nova Universiry, 1992 CL.D., Republica [baliana (faculta di Urbino), 13998 Reconocimiente, Universidad National Auténoma de Mexico, 2006 BOOKS RESEARCH IN CIVIL PROCEDURE (1963; Walter FE. Meyer Research Institute of Law). LAW IN A CHANGING AMERICA (1968; editor). QUEST FOR JUSTICE (1973; editor, American Bar Association). GOING TO LAW SCHOOL? {1974; editor, with Thomas Ehrlich). CIVIL PROCEDURE (6th ed. 2011, with John Leubsdorf and Debra Bassett). ETHICS IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW (1978). PLEADING & PROCEDURE, STATE & FEDERAL (10th ed. 2009; with Colin Tait, Wm. Fletcher and Stephen Bundy). MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE USE OF SPECIAL MASTERS (1983; with Wayne Brazil and Paul Rice). THE LEGAL PROFESSION: RESPONSIBILITY AND REGULATION (Concepts and Insights Series 2nd ed. 2007; with Deborah Rhode). THE LEGAL PROFESSION: RESPONSIBILITY AND REGULATION (Anthology 3d ed. 1994; editor, with Deborah Rhode). THE LAW OF LAWYERING: A Handbook on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (3d ed. 2004 with William Hodes). PERSPECTIVES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE (1987; editor, with Jan Vetter). BOARD GAMES: The Changing Shape of Corporate Power. (1988; with . Arthur Fleisher, Jr. and Miriam Z. Klipper). THE LAW AND ETHICS OF LAWYERING (Sth ed. 2009; with Susan Koniak, Roger Cramton, George Cohen and Bradley Wendel) LA GUISTA CIVIL NEGLI STATI UNITI (1993;. with Michele Taruffo) AMERICAN CIVIL PROCEDURE: AN INTRODUCTION (1993, with Michele Taruffo) AMERICAN CIVIL PROCEDURE: AN INTRODUCTION (Japanese ed., Tanabe Tr. 1997) LA JUSTICIA CIVIL IN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS (Spanish ed., Gascén Inchausti Tr. 2006) + 71 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 5 POKUS “ENI” SPRA “NI” CHT RAD (Prague, 1996; translation of BOARD GAMES, with Arthur Flaisher, Jr. and Miriam 2. Klipper) PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND REGULATION (Foundation Press, 29902} (with Deborah Rhode} LEGAL ETHICS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY (Stan. OU. Press. 2004) (with Angelo Dondi} ETICHE della PROFESSIONS LEGALE (il Mulino 2005) (with Angele Dondi) EfICA JURIDICA UM ESTUDO COMPARATIVO (wnfmartinsfontes, 2011} (with Angelo Dondt) / MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICA LAW (Intersentia, 2013 (with Douglas S$. Pinto) REPORTS {as reporter or draftsman) Oregon Legislative Interim Commission on Judicial Administration, Vol. I (Judicial Administration), Vol. II (Juvenile Code) (1958) California Special Legislative Commission on the Insanity Defense, Report (1962). American Bar Association, Code of Judicial Conduct (1972). American Bar Association, Standards of Judicial Administration (3 vols, 1974-77). Legal Services for the Average Citizen, Report of A.B.A. Consortium on Legal Services (1977). American Law Institute, Restatement Second of Judgments (1982). American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983). National Association of Bond Lawyers, Function and Professional Responsibilities of Bond Counsel (1984). American Law Institute and International Organization for Unification of Private Law, Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (2005). ARTICLES May v. Anderson: Preamble to Family Law Chaos, 45 Va. L. Rev. 379 (1959) Oregon Administrative Procedure Act -- Status and Prospects, 39 Ore. L. Rev. 97 (1960). Indispensable Party: The Historical Origin of a Procedural -+ 2? Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Fage 6 Phantom, 61 Colum. Law Rev. 1254 (1961). fasanity as a Osfense: The Bifurcated Trial, 49 Calif. L.Rev. 805 (1961) (with D. W. Louisell). Death, the State, and the Insane: Stay of Executioa, 9 9.C,6,8. Rev. 381 (1962) (with D. W. Louisell). Barly Evolution of the Common Law Writs: A Sketch, o Am. J. Legai Hist. 114 (1962). An Historical and Critical Analysis of Interpleader, 32 Calif. GL. Rev. 706 (1963) (with Myron Moskovitz). The Reseacch Program of the American Bar Foundation, 51 A.B.A.J. 539 (1965). Reflections on Four Studies of the Legal Profession, in Law and Society, A Supplemental to Social Problems (Summer, 1965). After the Trial Court ~- The Realities of Appellate Review, in Jones, Harry W., ed., The Courts, the Public and the Law Explosion (1965). A General Theory of State-Court Jurisdiction, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 241. Rationing Justice, @ J. Law & Econ. 1 (1965). Limitations on the Uses of Behavioral Science in the Law, 19 Case Western L. Rev. 71 (1967). The Ombudsman: Quasi-Legal and Legal Representation in Public Assistance Administration, in Sherrard, ed.,Social Welfare and Urban Problems (1968). Challenges to Legal Education, in Sutherland, ed. The Path of the Law from 1967 (1968), pp. 185-194. Epilogue to the Criminal Justice Survey, 55 A.B.A.J. 1048 (1969). Social Justice Through Civil Justice, 36 U. Chi. L. Rev. 699 (1969). -+ D3 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 7 Law Reforming in the Anti-Poverty Effort, 37 YU. Chi. L. Rev. 242 (1970). Legal Problems Peculiar to the Poor, 26 J. Social Issues 47 (1970). Securing Courtroom Decorum, 30 Yale L. J. 433 (1970) (book ceview) . Res Nova in Res Judicata, 44 So. Calif. L. Rev. 1036 (1971). Court Finance and Unitary Budgeting, 81 Yale L.J. 1286 (1972) (with Martin B. McNamara and Irwin F._Sentilles, TII) Attorneys' Responsibilities and Duties Under the Securities Laws, in Goldberg, Stuart C., ed., Expanding Responsibilities Under the Securities Laws (1973). The Effect of the Class Action Device Upon the Substantive Law, 58 F.R.D 299 (1973). Legal Services in the U.S.A., 2 Internat=1 J.of Crim. and Pen. 43 (1974). Chancery Procedure and the Seventh Amendment: Jury Trial of Issues in Equity Cases before 1791, 83 Yale L. J. 999 (1974) {with Harold Chesnin} . Law School ALaw@ and Sociolegal Research, 50 Denver L. J. 403 (1974). Rethinking Legal Ethics, 26 Stan. L. Rev. 1227 (1974). Conscience and Circumstance in Legal Ethics, in Hodges, ed., Social Responsibility: Journalism, baw, Medicine (Wash. & Lee Univ., 1975). Administration of Supporting Services in the Trial Court, 1 Justice System Journal 3 (1975). Representation in Rule-Making, in Schwartz, ed., Law and the American Future (1975). The Tennessee Administrative Procedure Act: An Outsider's Perspective, 6 Memphis State U. L. Rev. 143 (1976). -+ 24 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 8B Standards of Judicial Administration: Appellate Courts, 62 A.B.A.J. 1015 (1976). The Jurisprudence of Juvenile Deviance, in Rosenheim, 4d., Pursuing Justice for the Child (1976). Requisites of a Valid Judgment, 24 Practical Lawyer 35 (1978). The Suprame Court as Legislature, 64 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (1978). An Historical Perspective on the Lawyer-Client Privilege, 66 Calif. L. Rev. 1061 (19738). Talking to Your Lawyer, MBA, May 1978, 17. The Legal and Ethical Position of the Code of Professional Ethics, V Social Responsibility: Journalism, Law, Medicine (Wash. & Lee Univ., 1979). Interstate Venue, 64 Nw. L. Rev. 711 (1979). Proposed Revision of the Rules of Legal Ethics in the United States, in Am. Bar Ass'n, American/Australian/New Zealand Law: Parallels and Contrasts (1980) Guidelines for Claims of Privilege, United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 86 F.R.D. 603 (1980) (with Paul Rice). Rules of Legal Ethics: The Drafting Task, 36 The Record 77 (1981). Revisiting the Second Restatement of Judgments: Issue Preclu- sion and Related Problems, 66 Cornell L. Rev. 564 (1981). The Lawyer's Obligation to be Trustworthy When Dealing with Opposing Parties, 33 South Carolina L. Rev. 181 (1981). How Far May a Lawyer Go in Assisting a Client in Legally Wrongful Conduct?, 35 U. of Miami L. Rev. 669 (1981). Will the ABA Draft Model Rules of Professional Conduct Change the Concept of the Lawyer's Role?, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Third Orison Marden Memorial Lecture,1981). + PA Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 9 The Lawyer's Pro Bono Obligation, in ABA Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Legal Services and the Public (1931). Do Lawyers Really Need New Disciplinary Rules?, 53 Cleveland Bar J. 1 (1981). Legal Ethics: Legal Rules and Frofessional Aspiration, 30 Claveland Stat2 L. Rev. 4 (1982). Liability of Attorneys Involved in the Preparation of Disclosure Statements, in Fleischer, et al. eds., Thirteenth Annual Inscttute on Securities Regulation (1982). Arguing the Law: The Advocate's Duty and Opportunity, 16 Georgia L. Rev. 821 (1982). Judicial Management of the Pretrial Process in Massive Litiga- tion: Special Masters as Case Managers, 1982 Am. Bar Found. Res. J. 375 (with Paul R. Rice). The Criminal Justice System: Overview, in Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice (1982). Competing Aims in Legal Education, 59 No. Dakota L. Rev. 533 (1983). — Why Lawyers Should be Allowed to Advertise: A Market Analysis of Legal Services, 58 N.¥.U.L. Rev. 1084 (1983), (with Russell Pearce and Jeffrey Stempel) republished in Italian, Perche Agli Avvocati Dovrebbe Essere Consentito L'Uso Della Pubblicita, 32 Rivista Di Diritto Civile 277 (1986). Preclusion as to Issues of Law: The Legal System's Interest, 70 Towa L. Rev. 81 (1984). A Question of Scale, Harvard Law School Bulletin, Winter, 1984 {(ceview of Bok report on legal education) . The Technical Expert in Procedure: U.S. National Report, in Nicklisch, ed., Der Technische Sachverstandige im Prozess, VII.Internationaler Kongress fur Prozessrecht, p. 207 (1984). Legal Ethics, in Gillers, ed., Looking At Law School (1984, 3d ed. 1990). a+ PA Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 10 Rectification of Client Fraud: Death and Revival of a Professional Norm, 33 Emory L.J. 271 (1984). Reflections on the Substance of Finality, 70 Cornell i. Rev. 642 (1995). Curriculum Structure and Faculty Structure, 35 J.Legal Ed, 326 (1985). The Position of the Supreme Court in the Contemporary Constitutional System of the United States, in Lombardi, Constituzione e Giustizia Constituzionale nel Diritto Comparato (Centro Italiano per lo Sviluppo della Ricerca, 1985). . Ethical Considerations in Withdrawal, Expulsion, and Retirement (from a Firm], in Berger, ed., Withdrawal, Retirement & Disputes, Am, Bar Ass'n Section of Economics of Law Practice (1986). Court Delay: Toward New Premises, 5 Civil Justice Q. 236 (1986), republished in Italian, Costo e Durata del Processo in Italia e in U.S.A., 32 Rivista di Diritto Civile 271 (1986). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, 95 Yale L.J. 1523 (1986) (book review). Principles in Legislation, 41 The Record 685 {1986) (Cardozo Lecture). Rising Above Principle, 135 U.Penn.L.Rev. 153 (1986) (Roberts Lecture). A Lawyer's Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Professional Disciplinary Proceedings, 96 Yale L.d. 1060 (1987) (with Cameron Beard). Triangular Lawyer Relationships: An Exploratory Analysis, 1 Georgetown J. Legal Ethics 15 (1987). Permissive Affirmative Action for the Benefit of Blacks, 1987 U.Tllinois L.Rev. 379 (David C. Baum Memorial Lecture) . Professional Ethics, Rules and Conduct, in Conference Papers, -+ Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 11 ALI-ABA Arden House III National Conference on the Continuing Education of the Bar (November 13, 1987}, reprinted 34 CLE Journal and Register 5 (1988). - The Public Nature of Private Adjudication, 6 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 42 (1588) (with Paul D. Scott). Communitarian Ethics and Legal Justification, 59 U. of Colo. L. Rev. 721 (1998). Forms of Action Under The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 63 Notre Dame L. Rev. 628 (19989). Four Portraits of Law Practice, 57 UMKC L. Rev. 1 (1988). Ethics and Politics in the Corporate World, 6 Yale J. on Regulation 155 (1989) (book review). Discovery Vices and Trans-Substantive Virtues in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 137 U. Penn. L. Rev. 2237 (1989). Authority in the Dock, 69 Boston U. L. Rev. 469 (1989). My Station as a Lawyer, 6 Georgia State U. L. Rev. 1 (1989). Per un approcio manageriale al problema dei ritardi nell'amministrazione della guistizia, 43 Rivista Trimestrial di Diritto e Procedura Civile, No. 4, p. 960 (Dicembre 1989), translated by Dttr. Angelo Dondi. After Professional Virtue, 1989 Supreme Court Rev., 213. Law and Business Ethics, in Reitzel, et al. Contemporary Business Law (4th ed. 1990). The Role of the Legal System in Response to Public Risk, Fall 1990 Daedalus, 229. Ethical Opportunity in the Practice of Law, 27 San Diego L.Rev. 127 (1990). It Smacks of Elitism, Am. Law Inst. Remarks and Addresses, May 15-18, 1990. 28 O R R I N Sa no p i a t e s S A N E He es os Geoffrey. C. Hazard, Jr. Page 12 The future of Legal Sthics, 1090 Yale L.J. 1239 (1991). Tl processo con giuria come modello processuale,@ 45 Rivista Tcimestrial di Diritto © Procedura Civile, No. 2, p. d79{Giugno, 1991), translated by Dttr. Angelo Gondi. Swimwear for the Erhiecs Goldfish Bowl, 26 Int'l Soc'y of Barristers Quarterly 297 (1391). Equality in Civil Litigacion, In Kojima, ed., America no Daishihou Shisutemu ("Grand Justice System: American Style"), Chiou University Institute of Comparative Law (1992). L'avvocato e l'etica professionale: gli aspetti giuridici, Il Foro Italiano, June, 1992, V, 215, translated by Dttr.Angelo Dondi Justice Marshall in the Medium of Civil Procedure: Portrait of a Master, 80 Georgetown L.J. 2063 (1992). Doing the Right Thing, 70 Washington U.L.Q. 691 (1992). Alvin B. Rubin: Man of the Law, 52 Louisiana L. Rev. 1481 (1992). Lawyers and Client Fraud: They Still Don't Get It, 6 Georgetown J. of Legal Ethics 701 (1993). Sources of Delays, Motions to Disqualify Could be Handled Promptly Through ADR, July 1993 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation (Center for Public Resources). The Role of the Legal System in Responses to Public Risk, in E. Burger, ed., Risk (U. Michigan Press 1993). Dimensions of Ethical Responsibility: Relevant Others, 54 U.Pittsburgh L. Rev. 965 (1993). Lawyer Liability in Third Party Situations: The Meaning of the Kaye Scholer Case, 26 U. Akron L. Rev. 395. - Reflections on Judge Weinstein's Ethical Dilemmas in Mass Tort Litigation, 88 Northwestern 0. L. Rev. 569 (15994). The American Law Institute: What it is and What it Does, + 29 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 13 Centro do Studi e Ricerche di Diritto Comparato e Stranisro,Saggi, Conferenze e Seminari, (1994). Azioni di Responsabilita Verso gli Amministratori di Societa Commerciali nel Diritto Statunitense, 39 Rivista delle Societa 441 (1994). Conflict of Interest in Stata Planning for Husband and Wifa, 20 The Probate Lawver 1 (1994). Equality and Selectivity in American Civil Litigation, in T. Kojima, T. Atsumi, 4. Hokama, and M. Shimuzu, eds., The Grand Design of America's Justice System, Institute of Comparative Law in Japan (1995). Law, Morals, and Ethics, 19 So. Illinois U.L.J. 447 (1995), La Nozione di "Substantial Evidence" nel Processo Civile Statunitense, 1-1996 Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civil 251 (1996). Conflict of Interest in the Classic Professions, in R. Spece, D. Shimm and A. Buchanan, Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice and Research (1996). The Settlement Black Box, 75 Boston Univ. Law Review. 1257 (1996). The Client Fraud Problem: A Justinian Quartet, 1 J. Institute for Study of Legal Ethics 43 (1996) The Privity Requirement Reconsidered, 37 So. Texas L. Rev. 967 (1996). Commentary: Policy Implications [of Lawyers Problems with Alcohol], 10 J. Law and Health 79 (1995-96). Un Codice di Etica Professionale per gli Avvocati Italiani? Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, Anno L. Fasc. 4-1996. An Examination Before and Behind the AEntire Controversy@ Doctrine, 28 Rutgers L.J. 7 (1996). A Lawyer=s Moral and Ethical Discretion, 8 Researching Law No.2 (1997). Transnational Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 Cornell Int=1. L.F. 495 ~+ 30 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 14 (13997, with M. Taruffo). State Supreme Court Regulation of Professional Ethics, 72 Notre Dame L. Rey. 1177 (1997). Protecting the Environment: Finding the Balance Between Delaney and Free Clay, 18 U0. Penna. J. Of Int=1 Economic Law 487 (with H. Kunreuther, 1997). . Ethical Dilemmas of Corporate Counsel, 46 Emory t.J. 1011, 10953 (1997). Professional Legal Education and Citizen Education, 25 J. Japanese Institute of Int=1 Bus. Law 1181 (1997) (in Japanese, translation by Professor Koichi Miki). Harmonization Of Procedural Law, 44 J. Of Civil Procedure 70 (Japanese Ass=n of the Law of Civil Procedure) (translated into Japanese by Professor Koichi Miki). Non-Silences of Professor Hazard on AThe Silences of the Restatement@®: A Response to Professor Menkel-Meadow.@ 10 Georgetown L. Legal Ethics 1997). Per L=Indipendenza Professionale Dell=Avvocatura, 1997 Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile 407. Discovery and the Role of the Judge in Civil Law Jurisdictions, 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1017 (1998). The American Law Institute is Alive and Well, 26 Hofstra L. Rev. 661 (1998). From Whom No Secrets are Hid, 76 Texas L.Rev. 1665 (1998). The Duty or Option of Silence, 23 Law & Social Inquiry 139 (1994). Reflections on Self-Study [of the American Law Institute}, 23 Law & Social Inquiry 641 (19998). The County Courthouse No Longer Looms Over the Community, 51 SMU L. Rev. 1559 (1998). Foreward, Symposium, The Legal Profession: The Impact of law and Legal Theory, 67 Fordham L. Rev. 239 (1998). of 31 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 15 Substance, Procedure and Practice in Comparative Law, in T. Shiibashi, ed., Toward Comparative Law in the 21°* Century {Chuo Univ. Press 1998). Preliminary Draft of the ALI Transnational Rules of Civil Procedure, 33 Texas Int=] L.J. 483 (1998) An Historical Analysis of the Binding Effect of Class Suits, 146 U. Penna L. Rev. 1849 (1998) (with John L. Gedid and Stephen Sowle) The Underlying Causes of Withdrawal and Expulsion of Partners from Law Firms,55 Washington and Lee Rev. 1073 (1998) Individual Justice in a Bureaucratic World, 7 Tulane J. of Int=1l and Comparative Law 73 (1999) From Whom No Secrets are Hid [Segretezza e Ricerca della verita nel Processo Civile], Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, Anno LIII Fasc. 2 B 1999 Responsibility, Professional and Otherwise, 31 Connecticut L. Rev 1139 (1999) Regulation of Banking in the United States, in F. Riolo and D. Maschiandaro, I] Governe delle Banche in Italia (Fondazione Rosselli, Rome 1999). Abuse of Procedural Rights: A Summary View of the Common Law Systems, and Abuse of Procedural Rights: Regional Report for the United States, in M. Taruffo, ed. Abuse of Procedural Rights: Comparative Standards of Procedural Fairness (1999) . Under Shelter of Confidentiality, 50 Case Western Law Rev. 1 (1999). Tribute to Harvey Perlman, 78 Nebraska L.Rev. 744 (1999). Litigio civil sin fronteras: armonizacion y unificacion del derecho procesal, Derecho PUC (Revista de la Facultad de Derecho del la Pontoficia Universidad Catolica del Peru), No. 52, 583 (Abril 1999) 32 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 16 The Future of the Legal Professien, in American. Bar Association, Common Law, Common Values, Common Rights 357-365 (2009) The Futures Preblem, 148 U.Penn.L.Rev. 1901 (2000). foreword: The Future of the Profession, 84 Minn.L.Rev. 1083 (2090). The Future of the Legal Profession, in American Bac Ass'n, Common Law, Common Values, Common Rights, 357-363 (2C00). Globalization, National States, and the Rule of Law, in Jose Ciprut, ed., Of Fears and Foes: Security and Insecurity in an Evolving Global Political Economy (2000). Law Practice and the Limits of Moral Philosophy, in Deborah Rhode, ed., Ethics in Practice (2000). Tribute in Memory of Herbert Wechsler, 100 Columbia L. Rev. 1362 (2000). Changing Structure in the Practice of Law, 62 Louisiana L.Rev.167 {2000}. Equality and Affiliation as Bases for Ethical Responsibility, 61 Louisiana L.Rev.173 (2000). Environmental Contracts in the United States (with Eric Orts), in E. Orts and K. Dekelelaere, Environmental Contracts: Comparative Approaches to Regulatory Innovation in the United States and Burope (Kluwer 2001) Transnational Rules of Civil Procedure: A Challenge to Judges and Lawyers, 68 Estratto Studi Urbinati, Nuova Serie A-N. 51,3 247 (1999/2000) Introduction to the Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure, 33 N.Y.U. J. of International Law and Politics 769 (with M. Taruffo. R. Sturner and A. Gidi (2001) Conflicts of Interest in Representation of Public Agencies in Civil Matters, 9 Widener J. Public Law 211 (2000). Globalization, National States and the Rule of Law, in J. Ciprut, ed., Of Pears and Foes: Security and Insecurity in an -+ 33 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 17 Evolving Global Political Economy at 209 (2001} WhistLleblowing is a Non-issue, Legal Intelligencer (of Philadelphia), Feb. 25, 2092, p. 9. Law and Justica in the Twenty-first Century, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 17329 (2992) Fundsmentals of Civil Procedure, 6 Oniferm Law Review 753 (Revue de Oroit Oniforme) (2001-4) Clasa Certification Based on Merits of the Claims, 69 Tennessee L. Sev. 21 (29001) The Changing Professional Environment and the Ideal of General ‘Practice, 30 Hofstra Law Review 759 (2002) A Short Historical Sketch of the Legal Profession, 22PInt (Zeitschrift fur Zivilprozess International) 6 Band 2001, 205-238 (with Angelo Dondi} Principios fundamentales del Proceso Civil Transnacional, 54 Derecho PUC 253 (Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de la Pontificia Universdad Catolica del Peru) (2001) (with M. Taruffo, R. Sturner and A. Gidi) Judicial Redress for Historical Crimes: Procedure, 5 International Law FORUM 36(2003) Seeking Justice, Preserving Liberty, 54 Hastings L.J. 695 (2003) Modeling Class Counsel, 81 Nebraska L. Rev. 1397 (2003) International Civil Procedure and Transnational Civil Procedure: The Impact of Regional Economic IntegrationCAn Overview, 8 Uniform Law Review 437 (2003-1/2) Lawyer as Wise Counselor, 49 Loyola Law Rev. 215 (2003) The ALI/UNIDROIT Project, in M, Andenas, N. Andrews and R. Nazzini, eds., The Future of Transnational Civil Litigation (2004) Constitutional Law and Professional Regulation: Reflections on Sarbanes-Oxley, King County (Washington) Bar Bulletin, + Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 18 August 2004 A New Player in the Soardroom: The Emergence of the [Independent Directors= Counsel, 59 The Business Lawyer 1389 (2004 with Edward Rock) dumanity and the Law, 14 Yale J. Law and the Humanities 79 (2904). AAnnonacement®’ by Federal Judicial Nominees, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 1281 (2004) Lawyer for the Situation, 39 Valparaiso U. L. Rev. 377 (2004). Advertising and Intermediaries in Provision of Legal Services: Bates in Retrospect and Prospect, 37 Ariz. State L. J. 309 (2005) . Lawyers for Lawyers: The Emerging Role of Law Firm Legal Counsel; (23 Kans. L. Rev. (2005). Harmonization of Civil Procedure, 4 Washington U. Global Studies Law Review 639 (2005) (with Michele Taruffo}). Law, Ethics and Mystery, 82 U. Detroit Mercy L. Rev. 509 (2005). Two Valuable Treatises on Civil Procedure, 37 New York U. 3. of International Law and Politics 611 (2005). Responsibilities of Judges and Advocates in Civil and Common Law: Some Lingering: Misconceptions Concerning Civil Lawsuits, (with Angelo Dondi) 39 Cornell Int=l1 L.J. 59 (2006) The Rhetoric of Disputes in Courts, the Media, and the Legislature, 40 Georgia L. Rev. 559 (2006). Challenges in Law Making in Mass Societies, 67 Louisiana L. Rev. 1105 (2007) Jury Trial and the Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, 2 Penn State Int'l L.Rev. 499 (2006) Has the Erie Doctrine Been Repealed by Congress?, 156 U.Penn. L. Rev. 1629 (2008) -+ 35 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Page 19 Remarks upon Acceptance of Michael Franck Award May 23, 2008, 2008 Journal of the Professional Lawyer 389 *2008) Not the City of God: The Multiplicity of Wrongs and Rules, 42 Akron L. Rev. 1 (2093). Toward a Revised 4.2 Ne-Contact Rule, 60 Hastings L. J. 797 (2003) (with Dana Remus Irwin) Legal and Managerial “Cultures” ia Corporate Representation, 16 Houston L. Rev. 1 (2009); reprinted, 51 Corporate Practice Commentator 571 (2009) Civil Procedure in Comparative Perspective, Int’l Ass‘n Procedural Law, 2009 Toronto Conference (2009) El Rol Constitucional del American Law Institute, in Conferencia De Cortes Supremas de las Americas, “El Estado de Drecho,” Buenos Aires 3 & $ September 2009 (with Anthony Scirica) Quasi~Preemption: Nervous Breakdown in Our Constitutional System, 84 Tulane L. Rev. 1143 (2110) Civil Procedure in Comparative Perspective, in Janet Walker and Oscar Chase, eds., Common Law and Civil Law and the Future of Categories (2010), reprinted, 29 Sup. ct. L. Rev. 2d) 657 (2010) Advocacy Revalued, 159 U.Penn. L. Rev. 751 (2011) (with Dana Remus} The Cy Pres Remedy: Procedure or Substance?, 45 U. San Francisco L. Rev. 597 (2011) Processo Civile e Complessita, in A. Dondi, ed., Elementi per Una Definizione di Complessita Processuale (2011) Foreign Judgments: Is “System Fairness” Sufficient?, Berkeley J. of Int’l Law Publicist, April 2012 (with Michael Traynor) Facebook Fallacies, 65 Arkansas L. Rev. 1 (2012) Edward Cooper as Curator of the Civil Rules, 46 U. Mich. J. Law Reform 623 (2013) Various Newspaper Articles, National Law Journal, 1987-2001 + 36 EXHIBIT3 EXHIBIT J 37 k h W S W w u o oO o O N O N O N 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 28 d e n t i n e a LEE TRAN LIANG & WANG LLP K.Luan Tran (SBN 193808) Enoch H.Liang (SBN 212324) cul South FigueroaStreet, Suite 3900 Angeles, California 90017 - Tee 213-612-3737 Fax: 213-612-3773 Attomeys for Respondent and Cross- Complainant J-M Manufacturing Company, Cc. IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION . JAMS SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,LLP,a limited liability partnership, Complainant, Vv. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, d/o/a IM Eagle; and DOES | through 20, inclusive, Respondent. GC INC., a Delaware Corporation, Wola JM Eagle, Cross-Complainant, v. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,LLP, a limited liability partnership, and DOES21 through 40, inclusive, Cross-Respondent. Reference No. 1220045609 Hon. Gary L. Taylor(ret.) Hon. Charles S. Vogel (ret.) James W.Colbert, IIT, Esq. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CAMILLA M.ENG IN SUPPORTOFJ- MMANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.’S REPLY ARBITRATION BRIEF Hearing; Date: December 9, 2013 Time; 10:00 a.m. Place: JAMSLos Angeles 707 Wilshire Blvd, 46th Floor Los Angeles, CA.90017 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CAMILLA M. ENG [SO JM MANUFACTURINGCO, INC.'S -l- 38 — _ o o F e S w H H e R W Y N D B N R R e m m m e m e = “ O o 0 O B Q B D H H W A B Ww W N Y & a e r o r a r e r 8 24 25 26 27 28 e e e r r e p y n e e e NTAL ON OFC ENG I, Camilla M. Eng, declare as follows: L Tam a member ofthe State Bar of California. I am also the General Counsel of Respondent and Cross-Complainant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“JM”) and have assumed this position since December 2009. | state the facts in this declaration based on the best ofmy own personal! knowledge and/or documents I reviewed and, if called upon to do So, could and wouldtestify competently as to the following matters. 2. Tam aware of a 2002 letter from Sheppard Mullin to South Tahoe in which Sheppard Mullin states that there are several foreseeable adverse consequences to the firm’s concurrent representationsofclients with adverse interests, although in separate and unrelated matters, and such consequences may includethe fact that “a court may disqualify us as counsel.” { understand thatthis letter is attached as Exh. A to the Declaration of Jeffrey Dinkin In Support of Sheppard Mullin’s Opening Arbitration Briefin this matter. 3. Sheppard had never provided a similar letter to JM in the underlying qui tam action. I declare the above to be true and correct under penalty ofperjury under California law. . Executed in Los Angeles, California on October 25, 2013. Camifla M. Eng C) -2- SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CAMILLA M. ENG [SO JM MANUFACTURING CO, INC'S 39 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT K 40 w a U N 10 li 12 a “ 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 LEE TRAN LIANG & WANGLLP XK. Luan Tran (SBN 193808) Enoch H. Liang (SBN 212324) 601 South FigueroaStreet, Suite 3900 ‘Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel: 213-612-8900 Fax: 213-612-3773 Atomeys for Respondent and Cross | Complainant -M Manufectaring Company, inc. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER& HAMPTON,LLP, a limited liability partnership, Complainant, J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC,, a Delaware Corporation, dib/ IM Eagle; and DOES i through 2, inclusive, Respondent. M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. @ Delaware Corporation, d/b/a IM Eagle, Cross-Complainant, ve SHEPPARD, MULLIN,RICHTER & HAMPTON,LLP,a limited lability partnership, and DOES21 through 40, inclusive, Cross-Respondent. IN THE MATTEROF AN ARBITRATION JAMS Reference No.1220045609 Hon.Gary L. Taylor (ret.) Hon. Charles 8. Vogel (ret.) James W. Colbert, It, Esq. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF K, LUAN TRANIN SUPPORTOF J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC’S REPLY ARBITRATION BRIEF Hearing: Date: December 9, 2013 Time: 10:00 am. Place: JAMSLos Angeles 707 Wilshire Bivd, 46th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 -1- SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF K. LUAN TRAN 180 IM MANUFACTURING CO,INC'S 41 10 un 12 B 44 15 16} W 18 i9 20 2 23 24 25 26 27 2B SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF K. LUAN TRAN 1, K. Luan Tran, declare as follows: 1. Tam a member ofthe State Bar of California, and a partner ofLee ‘Tran Liang & Wang LLP, counsel for Respondent and Cross-Complainant LM Manufzcturing Company, Ine. (“TM”). I state the facts in this declaration based on the best ofmy own personal knowledge and/or documents I reviewed and, if called uponto do so, coufd and ‘would testify competently as to the following matters. 2, I went on the State Bar ofCalifomia’s website calbar.org) to search [whether Professor Lawrence Marshall is a member ofthe California Bar, I did not sec his name on the website’s membership list. 3. Thave also not been able ta find any book or article authored by Professor [Marshall on the topic of legal ethics, fet alone on the issues ofadvance waiver or fee disgorgement. 4, Based on publicly-available information on the Internet, it appears that Professor Marshallis nationally known for his advocacy work for wrongfully convicted death row inmates and for providing clinical education to law students, which of course are very noble pursuits but irrelevant to the salient issues in this case, Attached es Exhibit 27 is a true and correetcopyofa 2005 article in the press discussing Professor Marshali’s move from Northwestem University Law Schoolto Stanford Law School. S, Altached as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy ofthe Stanford Law School “Racebook”for the academic year of2009-2010 containing, infer alia, Professor Marshall’s biography. I downtoaded this document from Stanford Law Schoo!’s website. 6. Attached as Exhibit 29 is a true and carrect copy ofthe Evidentiary Objections to Professor Marshall's ExpertReport in the Saperstein v. Paul Hastings matter which my office obtained from the Los Angeles Superior Court, o2e SUPPLEMENTALDECLARATIONOF K. LUAN TRAN ISO JM MANUFACTURING CO, INC'S 42 e e r a w e e n 10 u 2 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 2 24 25 ee 2B 7. Attached as Exhibit 30is a true and correct copy ofthe Responses to the Eyidentiary Objections to Professor Marshall's Expert Report in the Saperstein v. Paul Hastings matter which my office obtained from the Los Angeles Superior Court, 8. Attached as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy ofthe Court’ Order on the Bvidentiary Objections to Professor Marshall's Expert Report in the Saperstein v. Paul [Hastings mattet Which my office obtained from the Los Angeles Superior Court. 9. Attached as Exhibit 32 is a true and carrect copy ofthe deseription of Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. by the University ofPennsylvania Law School which I downloaded from the school’s website (www.law.upenn.edu). 10. Attached a5 Exhibit 33 are true and correct copies ofthe documents 1 ion’s website (www.americanbar.org) pertaining to the ABA's Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award bestowed upon Professor Geoftiey C. Hazard, Jr. in 2008. downloadedfrom the American Bar Associ 11. In this arbitration, JM decided notto seek“get up to speed”costs for its new counsel Bird Marella (“BM”) in the qui tam case solely due to the threat by Sheppards ounse! that counsel would deposeattorneys from BM to expisin their invoices. Indeed, Mr. Kevin Rosen, Sheppard's counselin this arbitration, wamed methat he would require BM to disclose and explain its work and litigation strategies tojustify the “get up to speed”costs. This, of course, would be disruptive and harmful to M's defense in the pending gui tam action (JM is currently in the middle ofthe trial in that action) because it would require BM attomeys to disclose information protected bythe attomey-client privilege and work product doctrine, I declare the aboveto be true and correct under penalty ofperjury under California bw. Exeauted in Los Angeles, California on October 25, 2013. K. Luan ‘Fran “3. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OFK.LUANTRANISO IM MANUFACTURING CO, INC’S. 43 Jawrence_marshall_leaving_nwu Page 1 of I Lawrence Marshail Leaving Northwestern For Stanford Justice:Denied magazine,Issue 27, Winter 2005, page 13 Law Professor Lawrence Marshall co-founder, and director of Northwestem University’s Center on ‘Wrongful Convictions announced in January 2005 that he accepted a new position at Stanford University. Gn September 1, 2005, Marshall will become director ofStanford's Clinical Law Program. According to Stanford Law School Dean Lary Kramer, Marshall bas the administeation's backing to develop 2 program that will enable law students to gain real-life experionce by working on astusl cases.Kramer seid, “in terms of national reputation, Larry was atthe top ofthe list. Our goalis to have bim come in with his vision in bullding Stanford's clinic, Northwestern has a fantastic program, and Larry is oneofthe reasonsfor that.” As oue ofthe countries most well-endowed universities, Stanford's commitment can be interpreted as good news for people who have been wronged in, California, Marshall commented, “Clinical education creates a unique btidge between the world oftheory and the world of actual practice. (Most law students) never get exposure to the kinds of clients who desperately need representation.” ‘After oo-founding Northwestern's Center on Wrongful Convictions in 1998, Marshall played a key role in the freeingoffive wrongfully convicted men from illinois’ death row. The Centet’s efforts also influenced the decisionoffarmer Govemor George Ryan to pardon fout conderaned men on January 10, 2003, and then commutation the next day of the sentence of all 167 people on Ullinois* deat row to life in prison without parote. 1 ‘Marshall spent 21 years at Northwestem, first as a stutent, and then asa lawprofessor. Journalism Professor David Protess, co-founder with Marshall ofNorthwestern’s Center on Wrongful ‘Convictions, said about his leaving, “Whoever replaces him as the center's legal director will have a fough act to follow.” OnFebruary 26th, Northwestern announced that Steven Drizin, an expert in false confessions, would ths NCWC’s new legal director. (See page 17 for an article about «2004 false confession study by Mr, Drizin and Rickard Leo.) Justice:Denied will provide information about the Stanford program to be ditected by Marshall when it becornes available. L See, Mlinois Governor George Ryan Pardoned Four Innocent Men Condemned to Death On January 10, 2003, ond the Next Day He Cleared flinois' Death Row, Hans Sherrer, Justice:Denied, ‘Vol, 2,Issue 9. Source: NUprofleaving postfor Stanford: Criminaljustice advocate knownfor work to overturn I wrongful convictions, by Helena Oh, The Daily Northwestem, January 21, 2005 ntpufustivedenied.org/issue/issue_27/lawrence_marshallfeaving_nwutal rensr2013, 44 Exhibit 28 45 Stantord Law School Facebook PauSeoae ne Lary Hramer Pecnae €. tang Prose ot Lfand Osan porwiping!le elyciaeprovepramree energisingjenaeyierere,lh neataai syringesgeilpatronnedah ahetce olifan, ol pore.le Tepe hms:natndtl reYeesteepingdeat vl shinywnve. hensenaHe, arabiaeenSpeeth nl Sates aieenacetontesie Soom Asaeeeneaile AretehailSeyte titan Llane icone3p hove Nararte DewKraert a eatDevasepeehye isthe neeyDepa stanih he CeaseSelns Heelynialacy.ReneeAmeenhaer ane cules nl aeDie Ptrof LentYr,nySalfettheVala Mlebogeyor be, Howe, Reeaw LY aeccrineekefain ennhe prone Carleey elyaa Saapporeewre Mark @. Kelman James C, Gaither Pasar of Law ane Vea Dat) A pieaaarrmeratrae ieadrneghey Mae Kelnwe fas pple meee ypmachciadeckipisncet,t egiesaneee muneeee, wheraithoes heftagl Meals sein le eeecomecmeigobeeebevyouch gah heya ley raging fou queda abi lutherresectable wenec" comesere Une leap lites oreelotaline rath eqeor nestetoned sibeloer, cael eri He om ene, eedevewhenerngteiaStlayn HPD. enei> twa esetfeinti torae Associate Deans Frank f Bracato ‘Secor soca Oso of Adutiavabon$09 0F0 rk,otLeelaceadenmoresped heNaa Tn 804s ah neo esl magia yearlcaacaiabeewhaim omcalt pe cgemo, Bry eatin ens, spthe exten nf thegehat Hse sheeninsnts. ek ths weara raider ation. Mcaselenaeeeta Meaoer alin From aleeeytS ow: Associate Deans Diane 7 Chie Assocte Deanfr Puc Serve and Pui nest ave and Lecturan Lae VineeTCaersesdtud Ter Laven CoteneeSod PubIteretawe ‘ereupment. prose,wnt metaring prea. She alem, plseleninge curcuminag.MN.settandortBoh ig Firm Pan Lanie ht SengMe 0 2002, Peru or eeu Santi, Mme a he divetor of Etafikice Works/ West, che Ret ol tice sherevshe enn Cntier ofthatonl orion tileas Varhngton. NE. headwearRaneaansreenaiacice oftheTce lends Genter or Set une ac CC erehtLindebeeeeete or Chinese BrAktSheByher ow catealetryntadnoo ethae oiSarCo Wigs Under Law the Ben TheconwhenraedNotennrShp oloan ‘en statsony rhe LewyConuiteiCv Rigs fie Ss Frantic bu Arcarwoaangetyfar Irmcala&Adve.Ja anshannatornotheOfteGlenCmfo than Fao PesCanie \esumnailune einer ashNee Clipeaf Lan tayenam CoanLa) eeeee aeseaeka ison ‘ein eoeight Hedevotee, perked! nlnantlistonASdeservesetree to beeingLameSaatCngrand obereons, Faye Deal Associate Dean fr Adri wet Francie ‘aye De ntoLseinweenfrviaaiad fs peere9easerving ‘nthe lanes nonin,Ceanacelahen she ned the SeatonDelwent emus ocme acuraerrthealte esiofafin tenafata ndily met ptof sacean 18. Dger ers hennerthe ppccombatheatssnaadaeadehrfter ichseuspresiey ove on theternalproccinesnueci romdngsmSeanerd,raatfr eterCate ecerefon Catherine Ge Associate DeanfrSent Nas (Caesinei814one he tnenFrighthandik Suunbe andet. bu toupracytonytdrechon breweraliner, Pro rae IgnSend Lawehoetweer Clanaaea8 ncnwb Fema ey, eryFarad [aotGerasin prove proce izmirshe yate a henered afer ie profess oct denfoe udentsererin Cable Gite FernonLowe 49 Deborah R.Hensfor Judgesn W. Fert Polesof DepRexsitn and AsaiOsanfrGrdSs sles 1 Heiler'empleinaearc nngerantBnaril man et Tbis exteneg. Apolentaptpateatwwederithe RANDCorgonon’s iene ening he andl Lagaaratiieteaet egatneeonss ragh cesheave dparedlynyoathottgealettove eoaieerenfte UntoStidlofraeenAhaeet btnrtune he ttealrane RANDceetomth shesigitekt Soe Se henleChthmasPeaM GetEine (ian A Senidetearessenins on onple gs hepete hteof pemsi etow anderenanngt doef gute in, RoweHweeaeoD AronaAenAt and Stencesan the AercayAenWie SeSrlSchonentheteedatoe RAN tie Cate. Swan of teSef CemGeneNeatts EMARRNBs:Sala Seu198, she var apfirat the UniSoneraGalefn ahetayfigpen RANItee lemplone ts89 ‘Sabrina Johason weit Deanfo Conmniatlns sr Pl airs, Wickcrudafenorexper Snolinhe nal Law Schl tn208an snesdea ot cinmsictlme sd poi raic. Sted oteyeteeuhe secs. servingachedrat ofearpersepurathathe direof hl ral communicators to Angel pet ore cadelagxpismilesfr teiious CoTheresenaryfoloanerof FurpeneCaninaat ecm’rat emfc Severinbr BArt theChg ofeter Lawrence ©. Marshal Pfrof Lam, Davi nt Stepanle Mis rector of CnkalEaveticr, md Anociote Danfr Publnet enCth Eaicaton Assnrenameatfrhe CS bunaticesn. Pcacrary Marsalen secoaeh chinencoerhe il Legal CaeSteSete recone meloregongre Skeapeeve ltcedeofcocked enytls SainLevPresseMantesaeasia inxanshefon pen he Inchich ihosia Tr Levn i Pole Serviced ahti crLineMelofire ork ta ecunassurmisefsry.beSanntiy ‘i, erapresa aaSticCoenLaatoeat Baerwn8A Nowa famaelsegle thewakesCenaWeil Cates, beetrootseroatuanehiitialenseeth Sr seriefulPdSionthe US Ssprmeae Paikendhea ye ea ateRCypese ‘SumanRelic ‘Assodata DeanfrCareServes St€aioecateStnae Sel romepete see,wecriaS Praciw firm Pgta age Monend HeertrWeMei Sebaneaei fn7,Roe waste dermdseaedcase i peshen,Rutowncrc sel managerapcte aesSecacoercing. progrcriPlo angbe gl an vecIe BA Sglee Citetaohana Caisalaa 50 Associate Deans Jann Schacter Weary tonCom Prefer of Law and Ascaa DeanfeCursum cae cape tunerMenihae amidesiemalne Ftrot ‘Sopagasgheewe Snelemrynepesinn anye procro cnatnaay amteeltttonl ct. BeisotheSaft al eovy$0 edceorSane was pofsefara the CueroWarn orSh.waereyMega {arSee Eyfercure hewae an nunsirveyyonerl i aiineteweoHRat oncher ageert Hele oft DdCnt or the DtWaele aa esetate Dvfo Ext Relations 5 ‘ScShownassafReidcommenar 8 ennBaatens (BA "DN anertt ned I heeryledreiweeheep anh ThSnrFundete ‘Cha Gagtera.nerene elloofricher Mr near Matus oem MBA own UGLA Seu ecuSkenein MBejmf,buSdScho Anca ofdevelherehe mcrae: casueaiSt ledsentISG tin eng pttpbchoSalt Chang Danie! Sctlano Facaity Dectfre Aurat onRee Rack Center r Corpora Goreme, Sever Lectin Law and AsoDak oe secuEducation ond SpecPraga FaoSinn 1Maeodaniepteneu ethenpente Ghaegrmraaicy, erteae, soryom He sarin eiehoUeae llelaAe ‘TaReh Rok eaterforCure Canersreeaorceneatin etaens suerteoltesDieter Cals een,easmangeameeBech "ceaLLnee progne Cerperat ireraure ay etiend scenederiheyr {tmntaloe Hedheseie rearfteke nigaFlyCetera ene ‘ontncnneethe longer cominjrnersise ‘esiomtheLS. seaauraepee HitlingSatoanhen els ‘Fialmreeerects ofhegenheaCerPhe vanshecheeter went sinceningLag ecuof veraHata conned ea metbe AvaComCbPrrer suenatreefe, 5S, Tanaseenaprcrtsnd 51 Faculty Janet Cooper Alexander Fredeteh Bley Prtzor fe ‘expert tel prove rompKon eaetes CouperAkan inferMA“mthbab ‘ark anieta un proceraeg pela teetedaseacinicrt caer las abo. choy prsdlaeriae, Inlota a8 pre sora Sel LawStProfowor eesas bee nrg nlCobeso Nepean gespearheadhueyeach os piewe wal ga rer #9 Retring he an! aeehty INT. desaeat tir Foden Sn voteetaitCom Fonerstars a CAG, eon edemabuleon | JesAayapk 68spree CorJie TrypMeri an ageSeMAIafeSnateae she Ninth Chet Joseph Backman apt M, Parsons Profs of Law ae ese Aleatngctotiri heelinesna sharlyleche tej. His eon an peteerpcanpei cosonapanatleb ate sat He aepedeat ofr NetholenrnheUacera abreeen ralancepitslhceohe eranand spunenaHeweih ersspling tr abo Nore athe awe heme etreCongrtb Cottaconador bil reing Rewaricnnphtektprepuce bye wsBeer SentLawSeloa1, Pru skrun ma peraUserSatinCat Lane eeactapcieihe La geeaiheTap Aalph Richard Banks {Seiten ER ReynaPreset ‘next nope eaeaera,RpRankeSonEne8ie tech aesa3inletyfanfisaesinh oe twelereweyeohear Hemrewer ookae feof:aAp. Prefs Rasch:ta preabonis, xpos geelembae, dare andoeoatigptefaraLam StetaneenegiLeSch efijlSadLat Sleey, PolesBikshia LerFtHataam suaihhomUbe8ye Heancligsingin Phe, athe (US Bina Gafrde Sto OarKoYa, Niet. Broo Prenat of Uw and Oe, Stenord Caray La ine [ue 3. Bale, whdirsandacy Laalehe eet eereeeeal hand une Shenwoie tlecen developweg dlstareeteAmeri cere tert inwnsrhe "patele”en9 tales erpeinestagjeegheprado ennmacines he {4troqart spentrunesnealets, tl th thtesetepee acinenieatingcoretereycarkeasingceadt ber of he l le abl oeeaok loltheALSCt "ection Secson Shen Lengithe Pee ItolhePra origheel awchr the seuscunthe Stone MoLara the AALS. Shes cchahe 8, Praenn BrentartipfUneafWienLaSno csirrninsmcrnet heobteneridaeta WemwheerteHehepide AsefMetste 52 Faculty Margaret “tng” Caldwell Sonor Lectura Lay cy acl 5 Inastice ecer events,hanguhaay po,end wanerlobefer tchutinip Lasterthe einaiecalaebhe senaterecure pledescentanealepte dpe IncemCorset enceevocationthrthetaw, Caldera seveou Natl RewLawl ty Coram at thease, Cael befsagear| "he Wa autatte Enconacit de seresenenctthe etnheCr sue barSeswcon seat she Mety Ray Ayaan,te Beever ey Aaaras encaseinet thetai, piawaalainnt eeei & retested igentailysleatBrot CalonCotahinlesen bt eforny of he CaeCal Grea. Swaninthe ‘SateSreriny of HourstheCats MartUe PasAte Inewraaly enone TiPa ebenTkareheanh re feetnoay eedey1, (akin waninureSan ac Ste Laeritrahibe CuveeCalan, Lats: eoue fe HlemCLFAN, tecnicahe hy ot rungs Pann Cameoann uct Inchinneom RoWMeath ope ernne Sorkané Gasper Pressef La, Print marin, Plead Helen Bing Professor Underpaaty Eatin, SenFeo i for tora Stes, and Prasby corey) of Pls! Slnce, Sanford Unvedty ising leeneseentenellacoiled ow, calCaeselSad tn Spo tue UnrestprtfaHEABurgh Us, Hains renceenagatetd ome scons hoYleand UppVuralen beetsmembershipheAenea Adena AeeanSectte Amel awtami, he liracry of CngpealeLeOere sietesetancenavJsheAmuro shea reatsubermrkazeAdeadleu, Penaapc homme hataaco Slvrmeneenee {Se ilerametotc oftert hthCetpsnChlinSpedhe ‘serianyetn, Rtnnigte SaarLSaca #92, Pree Copnsngane feety member ihe sveoCwr besre he prowfhevay he sasheetager uo ehegunhs cen 9 profesor painkackiCtelain Beiele, {Joxtun Cohen, Poles of Poti Selonee,Pisophy and Law Ba] vis Cateninpiesa. rain pillbarpy ih aspera eeseeat hecto i leneestcheineoenesonmeny acctbaie tomeeracyatleral Whey, renee, ea npGee Cea Srofemor Caen ecncemalghi obary an tegite, ehheinfgh fateseuwupanunsneal ocean ehpfSafadepof dria sinceul pleNeseerseveroPRensnanesiplc Wermy Was snceichotel pape sapFn, Aran wilplednaAyHet UlverPrectak Raswat Faomanfbnpaning 110funa CieraPest 53 G, Marcus Cole ‘Win Bejan Scot al Luna M, Set Prfes of Lae Aschincbw af fantoupcapitation, neal SevCte Likeaypl ew aeerily9 rewathpclamayensMatesneleranney ‘toon nd wha dedc honnieteucat of tapas tackbeneHe hacenntet se Hoosfamehicho erent amefeWirpolkaywtu ‘heieeter Zam te eres miteeal ofcieete fee Cones Hue Reyof the Anelannin Ley a dehelene EepoCaRaBeestetntLe ‘vlbss in 197, ProfesorCavanancecamegrinheCkieano Maes, om haeleele Maren SheppAcaiiepeasheYh rea Richard Cease hin Feastiterations Potro Lat Alenaorumeend arate ofmars, RcaCaelthre ee [nenertnoria nd landpip. He Wanprt lpscmpSgeect popesnlseatedce weln aisdensestiw rteCaseathe temic sacle sana SuntLawSua arn 189 SUN,BaoSafLaShue ayn Khe ‘arn prancrat the Ualeehyof CheyLaShe, dheUtaofaanClaShee, hesemztaneshe dean jamplaan deer Meaganlhe US. HeeFle {Commun in ibeCte of PoliHagan the Gace of Caption aed omnes Marlans-Flaontino Cuda Protasorof Law ad Deane F, tito Fry Scher Traetengra pellirel cns, MascaraCF) PDTacuely nko gonfotoespe wihleyGrmaricapiealtice. Ierauhstetrpies HistnlleRtenec boasreplatafstance vy. ple pace atensting proves. al setetnd ewesofulepene (arene pejeheflosvn exceneot a rkegos bantseagegiHte + Secuhe eekmeet agiealccomeMaintuoanpb helapsct of ger iecnehowlbeieataPower CaeHeEee hanes of eStoreernadant ety woe Copal el ntheStoodBel Ine: tn evewar hasteeneth US SenaiciCaeserved often teSfpFoden, selon oesfirstbegespaymisMew shtrheSlo Vale TarcAe sierloneoshaonset he 8TreyOpen Seren ae Enea. an rhetue Wy MenoeS.oe Appetite Meh ras ios ‘hen bereeticringdetlinereaene,pmbhoorcercton sl ennchyanki servatewringhe Whi atsUninc mts enceeeraerEi Penris Pay Cave her iere pectanboprewrypal Faculty Robeet M, Danes Prither Prosar ol Law and Busiaes $e ineratioy nenacnpeaeasult eleM Qaieseya angerami rosin eyenao dhehteeeesanlnynd napemereRing inp reveunt haze fue eeynermage s4CEL pa, Well ot desors rspade pec besuchen. themayPecGomatheonaae, Ensaabed Ph Ye ampera erinneSnLa selayMereeri31 Newakety Seto at annehe vergemaeepeeeeiKm Jeu. tach peje nance martina eyiceochfgMah Weri5, CntApneSerCrea PruesvallefyneriheAsTn rl CrateSevalae emRach Centfo orprte Cureilssinc tbseithe Micha Landis Baber Professor of Law ané Sern! D,Gergen Feely Sencar ‘Nlpenetra coh,SeleLaeer bw wien highgaoraeed ishthelohewnirprojatlregan lic nation othe wade Ansean wfare tt. Sh toefocmet achonspateMorheNew Del anhfol ‘epldnrins sel peli enaSe ta aktondo! uth aepiesabkcakeol,eal secuiy pvt. iraeein neenslavergher of 189faim lonersnok, Profee Dauber ean ofler ad lieof Rlsee LalPesan ih mas ‘sumeSnLe sues887"mphseine date atoranteral eqreneunhipstralgies totic pute cms skipfro tm,et ‘naottome pice, nl ince halgoere Cems Pfsberche Enad Dinas tic sie this, Wienerhe 006 uleJinaAvr, Fredo irothe seanruntoshhea ‘eatlamerSafar ninesBefore oathSefllty n 0, se was ateck getpnRela he 85 Chf Appl for the MraeeRauain hehewihSanCieDpartnca Sioaae finewhdeSeleCeafCSanhte David Freeman Engstram ‘AsisantPetezsr of Law iv rearataaeli aeveei the dsgn puletm piceringig, sunset.eicomes. onsale ery, tel urn. CreteeterexprTk, ate yArecapon crisericaniinitmo peee eonsofthe Fe laiSPs: Pfeone Enteecbcle adeiaMuofhe US. Coat af ippatn theSeica aJab UhlleLae, ams anPaPtale {aw SoaHealprtGay, wml OF Kg, Hr Mane Hl, Fred igi be epromAnts hareUSSprCnt.Ca paneraoradnrate ponies Farin sce ehtectioncrMtnengdielaglaCente Very sd te HeeollaighacscefnieMeik, 55 Hora Freeman Engstromm estan Protest of Law ‘Nees FrerauEnea acutrsip eplrts lamlalcesar pontin he UneSaran tae Inconelhelpron,aaesate pat orca ‘ek ncumev“lemslitlepeesInylepcs tt earl and asec he rentci Th rams varaom the AnticaHar Amen’gyn Hema FaveSanerie Seticonte ae anfer LePrelatejg SSunlont Lat'sayn EB ProfsEaton reset oueltangeCaeLa Cnter and aseelie st WinerGate Petri acon lit LE veo sheaed eelpene Cert ‘eae epreentin elenhie se ce spplae aire unsSe aa bualket Mersiete.Coun sb for the iatosnae reledJde Hey H. Keiothe USDkotf he DreCodonrea she woviedsrthe US. esteefanceheendmctersan tinal elie George Fisher gn Jn Cron Pressr af aw ad Decry, Cina PraeetonClk ‘rmMasseuse oiejensudnnint aorCeanyeFereeeo >eholesredo aweesch lipexpres. hgh macnnarialeathi ‘ernaanatefmpronejuliabreasterunanaveh Ara rufaPhe’ pulls leranacelee chonesieaeonyle barging AeternaPrsecrow lnkhehwhaallerlene of ‘JobganHarudeEestonce n TengSafam Se. Beforeing thSenne SchGruhn RE, healelpaterac nonage LiSchaarfeeihCl ‘igs DivisonaeMosseemerCanerfil an iam inet sternfr Miles Cn, ‘asceuc Party caew PratFeereoradsiephen Brg HA $8oieGurof Appel bite iw Cre Sofirey L Fiche cota Prfesoof Law and Co Oey, Supreme Catgaram init Aleaing Supreme Crt itera onlyglspo sind procter First uaeneste he US ranaun, Hk saccooes acidWengwagedartef seo WenigcicaChalde Sheraiuyilapenas nfoashywhichyrheGeert wxmaapparwheGenwi’Catton Cnnwn.aiahcheele thegheepbsese ap, capilpsnorien thdhtrena ll, 6, Ta tiaooe otaFier see Hiae eoseet Aumrcr-theyungperhe tonaac adtrsrgse ce Ca ProfiFeriensee ais ‘natinetl an)cmatalhc Hesapseilalearscetl Kadyigangenpind he SeatLeSo! iruainaeeesrgTere, wrraedhessapelin eseeaIspr awor, FreBaereefrreeis RetooftheUR FeaAfreMrret Spe Cat JotiJaPaSee, Faculty Richard Thompeon Fard ‘crn E. OsoPrtscrot a ‘araccileghesnamileesinttioaton, RebaTanjaBurdadynoime nilavorenerat lon freeeelicspeed ‘kbalgeeelvoreaplsedensehiletwrkat fecally els sarong enn fronthe exter at ehaleg len uml antes eterstreantrnantaep, Meatblageaty: ATekee inneneein of ectvate. Beers ithe Seno Lae Sol ayn 160,eden ena Aseetna Masa LaeSa alge secMtnete,hgaly ‘cocoltanfrihe CayoFCanty, MoabMe ssn bernGonefhe Son Fone Aan. eawrenft he Wabi: Paton Prinance,torrNalel om Shr whee nagarveins eskeakafigsibab fnar Barbara A. ind tara Wi, ane Gato M,SaunasProfs ofLn DisacdeeraticeSeer,comic apines Shetareence peutdiltcenr atheaespoly. popes coryallel cw. SheBbteata ofa puttingtecttinyapaRartbe.the any legeele, refineFtnace oethefonga artaAvafor aetna. 8 eylic the Skep Saad LawSuntaliolnygevahop designerwuss nestedpuri exteraerocotsaml tranceennaadnerapele aay Shheee seinpene a et Noe Yarity ae Se wl DeringteSor Lawcucy 58, osmee prizemiws Ue NeYoiyreDl Wun Rnd, Wtari sndserel walachokeJge Edel Laida8OnofApprt:Sera Lawrence M.Feedxan avin Fice Need Prolesor Law ‘A versrenewed retary tegplMatdtn tamrene Sk, edahs for gettinthe nyaniuhobauldyerandyeehedeg, gure Inibeoraml suretyncn, eis relwltoma fr iran kpiathveeed sory PaiaintoofAawgs73, sl ainamen te 38 aes pt S01, Kiscamiot works ace herve chaechplanmneylate eink Proton Bietapistonchesletnonthieranhen rae _mulpe lingers He the nipfsanorinedyes leFlo inthe meanAzleofAe sd senceiniLaiofey i NewprofeweaheTniyof ‘WiscoiScho saSit Luis UnterStalLe: rokFennsamytinelyene wheSet ately Depaofr tl he GetoPctne naka J, GAson (Chaves J. Mapesfaafa ae ays Avexpesencet precitinereryon sears a fae oalagania Kia ctu hte setoe face raloscopara ater aneaeenaesaaemttdelveSdamin rorsgorend.eurcplakan4epeesmerny Inaan+ Corpse vera rj. risouorCaantttcAmriton sstl Seeraic EarsCore ret tantLeo ete MeaaSfeuEe ‘sat Cats ivieeofeerrinPaSerachfcaHi (Geo at place nFoptae as Heafo of YeTL Masini S. Cons of ppforse Ole ofCaire 57 Paul Goktstein ‘StaWad a8. ie Proease of Law Asboenprt or: hartge, Plahveina alsasn ratLEperig wanseenelaereghann etcand Intentpnp ntemasoileal pegeaberetrnbiees ereitesproptine, EnemuneaSuaeweepe Haga:aeataaheCokubidleAccanvet bsk ih> bigaKare of eugpraicu ab iatPry Th Tohins 7hCad oeeo nt Ramatraeihe erlywk couMane Pert Ineprecyxationegytin BEne Awroas He eveinagl heUX Lael TechnarAhan Panel om ancient Rgisln anyerBone nl eevatia. sconsiosve Man Mcoeorncelfenne pegCarpe aoMa, Sera. aa egaueerfe Manpet! Propetne Gee. ‘ecko, ber inn theSar Law Sii77.wan eenafaaeheiiNes rk Blae awk Groaly eae a! Kate EmanJohann Posseo Lav Alesting expert omepandlowsmonaBekeaeMenciaeyBA “ype lepton of nw wating.pilhiepele Wi ACURAEA, sm teet sec, Hereir wanrealialeerpie lane Heh ieGalt’Him Sem Cal massino Camnlssn eedheeatdhe Lawn Nena "rjc.dee by the Noemioti, Sseeuroearl, PoseCrecaseee mens ehSh 1.otWntNsandeth ceeasCeLaw ‘helene ad theoflCone ie Basenictyre ia Neth raleer Cateseven ‘Sirti LenderCoanreuna’ anesdhclncy Mo aoa erlg Susnae Schoety i198. cel parrat TeTar eetallainacaciahe WA. PejofEe sot atest ancanithe generate neni: US Dejenaeul ofTeh sre tor ertte PaleSenafii tS, Supreme Gone andy fran MinoWien of he Cut ofpebale FhClemCelaperrynent seneamSanfrtSusAldhcne Joseph A, Grundiost WA Franke Prkeu of Law and Gosness rp8Gratinnlyrenaexpatyal ics, cnt gineele Wisely Bae lideite, ae, td antheeles, aneben ‘aries he mennail ter ihe Lnae,Maerlie oanthe srt ‘losing SaneShesUse Ashae se. whichgenceeatimoshe peatdeleoe ascend cle thaneFreHigatesnehSoinae Schon senscaeucaiopmgrouruidcones ees Dineallege, hesling smear ‘heevocationpledpainsWe, heole (ayein ibeAlKeotCeteraomarCaneBele {SentabyHR rotenoeGrunt watwdsuiner fle Senet ant Earn vite serrahi PelicanEom Adrian nonmetalsor vontplngrateteradts anos MBs, Canker hearag, ElvicreeetraeextBovis ionaanemigothwhe8480 Gongs Faculty Deborah R. Reesor dg Sn W Fr Presto of Dlpue Raslton a6 Ascte Den or Grace Stes DetHaleyiocweoneee,cops Minameoeie res ceri, piliratdpepicawnaeohe RANECops Lentil or il fietonghetia einestekat gitarinesagslainsteeleabngnemer ijesterabeCtSates het ifcwaineh Shorweheeni esloh2earedcrabRANE congrccesie2epena ‘weaigonne Uabed Seen. Shin he ahool Ch tanInFanaeCeFo Pee 0frdeeatsleepisn. chp. ait eaeupars io he needreacdempoatees ProlerHefasricanAcsofAaaence and he Aen Aral Pits raSel Scena wince saneahbofeethe RANuae frCeks Se as "hedevote tanCerCane ni ayaarsel2. fingSwaSlrnsa esa prostrate UreyofSheraalelSchon Lamaartierpaltte atRANDwheresne pg om 978903 ‘Santel E. Ho ‘Assia Prefer Law and Robe E, Pave acl ato or Eales in Teecrng ant Resear ‘inlet Heshonipentre autivecenpe geldl.aie satiate, eco ig.ehteeedtleveepceheMey Sopa nathlhtWren eeafatinmainat ueconnects fllestrminon ne tigen,in suing doertl he Nesethhe vingSante Camesl evefrJe uephen€ Wilani US.afAppearot ‘elonCen annponte towae aiorQusatheSvict Mzard Une Hsworkhas bem sapped bythe HasnaSeceFnndoncorel cfthe Warren Bkrine lectLes ter pubenAnti208he MionAwl fhe het apeplcpest slrawadm LF, ul ibePgipwandte ee geders he MidPcleenAton 200, Pamela $. Kari ean) adle Motgomry Pfr of Pte are aw 986 Co-laciag, Suen CouLigon Cie Apecssels and andice,meaSack denigenftce editscentl upcaLitCae wereteT cmsetre the Ci,oe erate’lagensang theyee proces. he tar seescenithe Ca ir Pia eavesonantc pringrte SAACLltise Pe, Protest Yarn thecontroeekceedsoma ie how wd rebaylsae tots reately ek She be wilerecimmer oper erste Sono {aSeachy laIM, she ears profesatheUsoadelof sere ‘er aie Lan kann nf a LS. Spreenlge AbiDSles US he Coe efNo Yr.arash sere AMM of Asoiearom he AneLa, 2 59 Mark 8, Ketoton 2am,Galion Poles of Law and Vie Bon ‘Apri wearsowgrecitera range rmacmoscsipy. Ak rtmhonptt orl semeuscureptkikisrw cen. atininice regain,Meyoarene scarhatedee hon heCaee te toaingcatererWl he “eteraeie” ete“Pts” ‘lal e expecaseraie npleatienie dtimes lr aie sayincreg ear apale ponserenanletrvieconmmeraie4 rumraerer eteeseee armsrisehen). nminusingnageeer naeat prgenyake mons, bemcaescone eanenderwc athe sceBtjoingSeLaSeaneya 7. trae Rehrsine oo ‘etaltiepejethun or tbeyaRoe Yr, Aavalie 0. Mescior Pofere of Law ar Hele rebarFay Satole Ascherman idaleverscelpeteAtt RekerSN, h001 Seka toeapbe he otfark euregreenposeat nn i287-4sherece {Cher apap RenaeFlinrat he ArianCn ofLeanSoi uppingwesc ‘vhs eerers Seok prj cneam sheLNighetonadrenalabutting, fargo tryeyproconsinger forcepsapcholate book A eatin Comet Th Dron tant Cert ndifCmSrii igenors Frale [airyre,7, smete AnerHidaAsc: Bal Mao eftbat ban gh vargsFresh Me. Al3085, slp acl SarrettAneSchie {aga Mbeyabeare the prowpelahe awua HiiRienJning he SanetaStoey [8daca rikaaeneyinthe linen he 5. Departfeiaml elee Phe Apesfo theSes Chea PasaKeer ha an yunabetbeSemChiganicatr Daniel P Kessler Prtesor of Law ‘Aaespen umheidhpuladbree ree, Kener scholhpach MarceeHa, "ty antPPSiesrtCa sealJohCayCnHattietke cope ennCaneelbeating be verteice sais helsmart tcpag. HeolInetisha spraksnatend ean Furlan he cot adetyers scale ello the oertersa lusereane paler Myc-tyweaetrd el M,ProamrKesticehe SentGate Sehr yfnes chy 15 Yarawhene chenwir artblyra peopeatne re histaehinHe abuRach astaRahn cae Erion Rewesh,Povcwur Kesbahean (eaers he Nelae a MenCarecrstleoa if roiHeh ronment Awaréson, He ns ewhei reno sbeShu) heeyHesNataSreellabeClea entre Yumi, Ihetaceewereunions oto ad thepasesfe Clie leveeoa etssng emse ieesti, pbc py. eaeetSe HartatSeaoieere Reape. ed publimeres piperscomineelHc nabyetTieneet Leurawetseean herTiSmea! HeMoe 60 “ Michael Ksasner Raney and CaerMr Petes Sunes ad Preston o Lay Arched cenaoe atconpnate gsensoee Micha Rameebay unenth emi 62 il aiapohUc ba scesheen ‘eek ioral rane anthracitedeinage.eee scolarceteris upton issder Inlayee sehik ‘secretepeManley7waepn ietsSeveLaat Hone thirdepauc siintheico bey ees inlpntc ee tineih rach Wig BCal Ig Ko tee fofreWinn Mean fab€S. SupraChay ooavecteA 1 \yeattee aes Koh ne ae NancyWright Prtessrof Clea Educaang Owector. Youth and Etucaen Law Pest Amacconpise etal ate aght BA Kool PIA)tele and dager theses outaed EctLew Peaale ans the Lienf peepeehonedtthe cennthefewateylily asanachter matier Aictingenic Maylenesiit.Ronlnworfusereheat anergy andauc ee po so csthual plc reload iiaean king stronpele etrepoe. MemosKel scethcontest mamaaferot iimplendaaexsuag rate ofeduae tok mabe core nietfecaladd nb ennui. HeflinSshCeee elybr2]rfKownkre 21Rafaanda peringneniachoat Pi AkeCompal Lat Pst le wale an pete atOrvatt SuetsetaenumSo, CotReliesppininen lyeonib SantScho Eatin Larry Kramer chard€, tang Peseta nd Deas {ty RemeronSi Lart in8irr Laysid ad em Aste esen hesparspetical! ntiallcapeciegesprtasss pt enulcynaryappeocioeyl ie emadaseqepene evi amppcantet «pli viet, haeregg 9p oyetyon bationyl psec, DromKrshenelif lelkia. eoi rerio.aliyeehteos in ele eh Te Ppl Yas adetitaneneprsenemaomgeeeane he rtonshig etre te Supreme Cnn de nietestc Me Saeteell ofthe Aner Acadol Ama einemereshe Amen elleSareemreaouttHe98 oak Works nmeDesRrtardffHotesednendsyaiheSear UaeHepa ieingiheNafeahy esSytnerrman Awan Heete tradeselNex Presa Lest NotEuSnel ampifirlyCask (CaenMitigatewanand He: Rv, ReeALEIneste DraKane eetral (inn. reveunjefe U3. Suprise leHew ralthSCApisglCr ‘Mark 8. Lemtey ‘atin9, MachePeso aLav tect pegemyb, Slrk A zune640sarms ‘iatBigscsore. Spree Ca, the CalibrateCa, su leat foaniemawll ape weryrshu Ioaieant de instore Congres thenin agentsFkTkGas el a Audi het oustete, aie, aranllwsy He beaaant ieLeeLH Inset pestbolbch ltanieinthe Baseoh gntae See Fete vgsi. he143 gram a, Shee 8 Ts forpkg StandESGain M0, betapor lie y Lnaly neeeyaF TeaStuntes Um MesosaltFl Rtsal Nr al ReduonheCueofpptthe NhCea setdeel or [ae Dra Lenronce C. Herstall Protecsro! Lam, Oda and Stephane Mis Dhactr ctGvEves, and Ausra or Pale nest and Cink! Education Aeonresumeetfeehe US. ral toeaw, ranay Aileenben ely resinttaactiecing, A ecoelsagaStanfordacle omeletsceteapreoetlreste sectcacheerie SoaPrototlnabheen atric Inept Focanetc ‘amettoh be on"Teer LevColi:escenariohy 205. ern pra feapaofah ey, BetoongSood ayn au NendoUneSb aw au cenate: BrPa AS amtaces he renunde aatedaeheereltees CenteaWeilCaan, ee be repentawryly comalaces.lanony emtwiceil Beeesldeh Enkin aoc. he eslflr ie CaleCork, APSernaiSreeCn Je Fal, UaUS. Coe ofLeprthe Jagat Marton: Saror Utur n Lne pie Steshres hor santanadheeeinpmasec eral lle eeememdesig thaton of pubic igptesprea 1heekiistenionnindeal Ath cna gti aa rovingage atlegaletmeete Ansei, prt. uel wnat enue faldaleseefheawaCnaan ulMesias Prog. EntManecr an aCooma Haig Int Coma, Se mosionhn iiiseeit nahn mdtaLaebn ssneg9Cac, Ma Hefing teSeLawaR, ah eae eg alahcs apsepa 2x HavaUrmilacetaeee spoetmen snl wnsttBrahe Me RenCapon 62 16 Faculty Jeany S. Martner Proeasore awan Jun M. Roch, J Faauty Senior ‘ear. He colaewes the rd if etesl somenecseasig. hetaheange Rearfenstbutepgatheme tienen er wreterpenesNeeerstMoan}Candemeonan {nyttacu ghtibe ee war aern” Aa eperenced ig. se Segue he £003we itm Podobne eX SayeCaekgarctanpastorLewpL "eamyceaaratwo we Schltr, HrfbudeMace vat noHie Sectieoatsoop Lagyrs Goer a" an attien emgTongaleFl "Se arbeadfein rte penSarayuse alesrconalenlibecha ysFire IevermtonsCerTienfrien arch fellow aie UnitysnareJrmet & lock Shele en JufseSephra eryCBN chUkcoeCaaJeCialles he U.S CnetApa feteSeedera; she wakanellitefgPaWine {nitetonerniin Tnaseee Yapins WehaelW, MeConnetl icant and Fares Mllery Prolene of Lam aneDes, Sano Constind Law Carter (Wyegetatoneote tonsfdsmt dapatessenichthHanae Michal W. become sentingthot separapela, rianontheeps Ceara. Deis paral alt stone Care ekonttnign erareauna Ineoca key formothatedire he meniWe bi adiovenheiseeee ‘he Susford Cotta LaCeaweae iytoape abelroeple ubretig of ‘ead pringesisae. elefingSena20 MCsaeaewt ae {B.Comappeari TaCee,He wepreaesireso Lathe. Qulaney Cole Laelesak,hafeWunanPwr of Lae atheByage ren, Mecstponkealtaea appli ginaesbe UA. SiemCou mericnee oon, dwSpi Cerathe pele pale auenCharbel ht inna geHr, Hiserved nlaclrheCKTse. SetWghe UA. Cogn of Appear ntGalaCok alesteWEPanffde Supeins, Meanaraaxcnraonet Manenes al dgrtonstee‘heSue eee ee Pet nffee ver Erte!atl ay, Ke anws elie attheHee ten, David W. HB Stra Lectura Lane ‘As bmer weno oxpracace managing peohoEerie.»thenea BookW hh bteterabeclericatl Bane, ralhe eens faeged wih scerienTh Pres HEStangstraratSit! Lae Shoneo ‘cocbnclycingieneCrimeaRheeCaHaewun of amuseaeonecolori, A tieafst etice hanaewatMeainlacSerawe Fete. Hissub rsetiGec emacunthe RseterheMAAC Lee tow toLame, ah Ptr enten anelirergSLaNewarknihSte Ch u crtSeaLa ‘Aeson D.Shorantz ‘Peseta Profasr ol Law and Joe A, Wikon Ding Facuy Salar Asc eamrereeredheartpaoy al enhheheand aan wreein.cenieneaatealerent.ye sey.An 2. Meanceacb yeteeteelpiton. tc het tn!epic ‘evielec steraNeatheee 1 devahing heetait er pistemicaf! heeeore eunpemateeis afoeulng er Sor Law Sebact $86, Phar Sheaeu Pye. Rome. Uv&Eeechingunionslbbanlil FoePaSarte5Corhiii Howe ens adres the hk Joan Potacaila Prosar of Lane Dr Jomevenape 2m 2 yealpine pecoenrc a emtakssits tenottUnfeetsecoretlnsaCalsound engine beUeRee ig Intemiof 11 bokaocre nad pepeateelmsfiisancomet edenpoybafta Ipies shengaiAcawieaapete empire etchwtsascone, De PeetEysitothe Sianfvt eimijaslee Cees (S40 fargopiceswecrncontensenting, ndtin. nl epgona ‘lesdremeltmept od publfilracine he ube iUri intejue pulleyVesot end taal veangeanLawhal c,h: Pera _ roefxnnseleeScolaoral Bey he tersealors, Inte deci ofUEP CesfarBedeseChrrctas Sh ba prettyrvpennGreer AnSeog lings onsetanad corenonsa uringmiCainsSe apartrum neparkfo Sheecardtera Sbraranegers RealiSih Tenn iad ve acoerCalis paloene psp: Pteis ba farteco henalfoiPe a the RANEtpsarepee SacerAnteonealcthe NalaReachCineaonCornypain andeihn es ‘semeiowane ofthe SaReachCnnel anCreVinih Heidebl A. WitchelPatiaiy JomhineScolt rote fessorf Law ont oes A planerAerGath tpncane toa Mini ashyapecha prmdaing worn he eoneleattka tssppneaeh unrerags He hay res tape arson hezeaefrafrkplan achesdentenenaoepins ncnsitno leperPsy PP) iste csndersnt teenofysH.CeraaeRemand Law Seb hasbeen wgetYellal etefhe weious amdEee sawedaearn rarech osmnthe Ewe ener regrl oheNatlonl eaofle Keech eforigh StanLawSec78 he aterweeaky nel Caer, CeesPoya‘poneretewhaaorivrspans Eamets RohertL.Rabin ‘Cane Mackay releot JeqnnnnstaiooepemalonsceRobes Rvniy eyaeerlee sce be Bsr30lashlfecto. He pormice tes reli ifaeoe lar sete elsharmawham na seeinaf, fcah sAbonbeche pe mu founFanta Fran FoireBry Reethnlinae rently suadesate ncainLIne RenateoTTipir 4poteereLeetPnCapintdiyeFeale ade Ameria Harsatin innCotta aHay Steeasiene eeauonta Seba aly inc 19, Faculty Debora, Rude mast We MofaransDotan of La of UndaRalneesee’ Rtgcholele i hgrdpie 3 iy.irBhancagendoarnkhnieseget leeanees. Stee seeiSealCeehe LapaPitanrRhee Apa Stanfees Centent ER,he GomunosonWooPrfln ie fmolelnnet oredrouly Mee nntt oerere Sneedsevenercna minemieeseeHaeCeeshfein rel!chet aneing ie Aonaan Se neve ie Aiosciterack wear ose teyeereputeatFessWM KerForseAlleriavehied‘hieAmenHarAeaanBaaPhi van ow be eatpilingpie viepyres ntoSh Artaudete and serchficheayeMenuriethe NOM Legee ‘et dcaFl She creclumvia eeonlZagorplihealLaEU, Paoewes tow thoSupra CoatlThrMarkl Jane Schacter ‘iam ncan CromePolessr ef Law and soit Dan os Crh Foc scarbonmepvsleuth sapeahahemaive ‘doseand legsPinscyJate Seleneealstntte nerpetaonallane peesconcn i,aerttkaeeepiCawScti20 Sieg {Schoo ahrn or carers wasnannegstMaiscave 04 Cain Prolene Scaroferta te inherofWoman ue Shelaveathe olen Sinton.mals hnetnnke Rayneethol eS Obes Cm forthe ascWaend FDameSicitano acuDicfor he Atha nd York ert Foch Cora lr Carparat Govemane, Sir Lecur in aw ard ASDDet t carte Educaand Speci! Poprens 1 Davie! Sana Yenpao aeneprnn iftendertexdsc neeamperemune srgnee gunHeri nttiiyds ofhe Akoan TlRane nkCer or Corpne Garrats, secedefoecientepi woeanender fis ects Cate Peay Slam mata secteinrocheat acerLMsegs pngCprGvacnanceiPrealpeindiethe ropai ae, Eemmcrind siu Mette wate rach ilividoeyCem3a nmeoelrcena ition pula en, Horaseape ‘tamioftatahe Seno we Hoe ofapres PilganorScSonsseulepeeerrt be turnhsOeGetterPr AnnHelsendne ‘sereieneionCay Ginnyteetaoi 20g Shans serve aget manema ond el tnhgeerdssPatachatarhe Ae Caton preaenergie Deborah A. Shas Professor of aw an chr, Covent Law Cine ‘aigevenue,ews Si17deehlselnnneb stich wadembteotneadevenaalalgrasvemmpleatonse a carie exsavnrtil sis PdeSegationtegatanarasga mie nds ra Sana htacoge CS Karmelteh queacre -ubing sellturgea ceivepeel Inspfais we et erent rearc teeta thterion in sienerbiihearea nase eae aideal woine py anBie ise ie Wlpire evouate Sheteaeetyak weno ees Eosten sth ekabea. Sie US. ic int re satiate anatagramHer DefCaboSho verveet servfr heesettrhe fleeetehenn ‘flix wanbalfecornmealUngagin nae PeauShaeof Nosrsan W. Spouling Netan Bownan Suet ad Mai. SuisPrtseaf Law Amba regis cteeareaadrexyonsiyahs egal pfeion. NoraW Spendingssc tunes theBtn ofhe Anetppin nd preteen 8She sitioaenero LaSedroe in wdits OnalagSealy Papua for“Catan CuaierMomumet Feder, Reststccioc und he Pre ofCen Meany which ws pliin {WeCattRreforbeSrLawSnespeeshee ScatSeaduam aananneStan, Arle, Meagher FnUL, eeiemer Sian, Pricer Stig 7ereew cernuc esPater (QAabe LS Coun aane (te SinCea and jg Tale enema de US, als GaGorSetnDeafCand Jnyastet Srikanth ‘Asset Proleor of Lave and Dog,lent ihene angenea ins elSeanaferaleach oviruKiglsi inhitedcyaineiyensmiraHennea oemcarenrlnkertannavisi kingans aig omaneu,pectin, atpyaar, Profs Seams ‘uma stringtd omniaAerShealproce ntecofen bwacne Inngratns eres etek wth redepanypels PrafsesSanhoa eget ahem ins nominees Incacumrcesine nagrrinkllvlinks el niet scatReon the SerfLaw SchoGrnHM.lanwath anc ‘ibe ACL Nowe Calorinss #2toring she ACLseignRighPe Stipeencetl Iran aul berepee naecalamari reteraentcli the WS SopraCo:epsoniaalicia. rinane stersevtesavaarraaofea Rive SerineCao alk HotsseeekgeLe Pnvon ke CS. Cufeabare Strh Faculty Helen Stacy Sony LciaLaw nalbogeyhspee sereneteenyhavin pentagalesheeve ataungours. choyyetptrnggereem Sp ecd “ert ean salsoarBoialokehsel, Steyn wennfellow mbet oe 0, erahala Ref Lat SaCreseoanSg le fortl Seallec irreverent heten sah program. heln aectie Wlh the Ups rin he Fron Seec» mtr fAauntCs heeg in SadeThea Userre sun se amcase CanNeStfilngSonn kaSeeelHES, Saceres Gerallenof TeteShelfC feeSbet onlin Asin or mvertr forse ner bcFrisinaegies sett Sted (Chace A. Bary Prfesro Law [etsenespeeveebaf eeton, pic amu, sae ulece espind angwerkbeneofearl erie Ffel ran inmemt et ‘eave meted renawgetonesie empleanan gantheo. een the SainLaw ‘Snotaay 997. ewe 4 pveaayacestCaranateTechnolgy thfoe Min frfenor oF axaheties SatherCleGhSeontan PreeSend Po seme ppeitmeperfonointhe Sanford LisinenDp Hathleoa M. Sullivan Stay Mowison Press: t Law sa Fura ton vacMSs Ay ponent cute amb weber ofenol ar: Aulaeg "inoanlhe anubeatescain son, ye, ei. nd cota hey poetot Haar ae Sean fseaSLhdafhettn tennArteoAeesandeAPilSie.nasaie tsneenigmansareSuaCnt feewihy TeMt amoreetIarama crmfey oaey cyan Falpps Mithe iilay eral crosseshe LLMpretnvne1orwc Alan 8,Syhes James and Pati Kowa ofana0 eng expr no dhespbscienanenln Soh Feteise seriaerent ren ibaaan iacNlgtaepshnsle i ew ranmaleonaaue:habaebdecactisn thee ‘keAmericaaa LectcriglcoreserensopaterlekAmatiLe rect onUoFe LaneTsrk Fakeyg, Pa Bann Wr hes aentaeothefoe? acistie il Hele Reve 1sere n seer theffUniefoefeaametiniheStdaeey lo ener cae FennDuCecePleaLat he Stnwr heabsencefarkHearts Nationalce ponteae iodoBeDep GcYaleoes eapeteevahieSennuti Yenonte alles Reusch, 67 Barlan H. “Baza” Thompeoe, ie ebart€. Praise ProfesorNaeel Ress Law aPany L. Maaty Dest, Wout it othe Enviroment Attyape!vieltera reerAsempl. Ran "hee hwy MN 72, ac 1 bag ey of eerie raspcherieel eaten vniqerae ogdicenfe ech ing Artenetor tc Enthoncat so ig heTeFrSatEngi Deaton28h eugenemepptPoleThon enerermapect den Sne eanag87g Prone Tuanhhaor KenerLeary fultestesagFaae dhe Sete SeenBanoe CS, Fost 8 MeesLon Angolan iu etce Fr i Na he Sal log athHeatssrs sa ern ainHedSie Lapaart LEMS,aesMe tthe LULASeboaw He waeakle Jueit Ree LRA,eCSupaie eveyh T Stte8 Cnt AyaleMat e Barbara van Sehawick ‘sootPreessr of Lav PesanStewieeccrineeen; raga, iteiiplofecicton Inccaplasiwe tnegsaearchitecne otanpatectshesmo soc plete, ‘evreanenfor ratantompetho on the Inert anecestenhag, Tw fase hers ring pert athe incwick wai. roar vanchew coderante teCemer or tert and Sieaahayenoflearicl enlnrycnring 24a ‘parteenoflei! aginPeingthe and Lawry. anSeceaeoresther theftUneBra, aren, laterlthfheCee neroSec Seleas ‘erieth the Germ FerNenwor ye onacopelFrm AgeADMornshenbcBridehe edheGenFesNsBeatonsad Reartatedundpuk abeCiefr Inca wtSic Michael Ware AssanProfesor at Ln camel ln andy, Meduseeeian lions peaba Seaweed Pekaeeen llyaeheptane she meg shel arte or jurelaeilteenixhyenaetc, fhe yaneinexpt in BH rcazefreeratcastelee hlarkhy eeaed Tesh Sewertee coeWfSaaaresale in eri eeha Nimaadjane acanaeseperlne sshechaseetpeteteora eng alendronate, UncgunNara areslmte Perey Fay alBt beepSangeripltatarinSat. 68 Faculty ‘Mon 8. Weloer ‘SenLecurer a bse ‘iWineneti nmeasexpertise lesa athens law seb wanevaitena, it ane etches esaehepsomeeknes AlertnessreeadeeinMnwe hiHinoshedetl deaeyes” Inemtnhese ‘ovate ssarlbesaie nl, Hepesee lev 5. eying ine ratthaadnmeenmee ets ngsato aotpremhe CeSeigiinessailFleet es onlCoat teilheelyeoFen Lsinper Wweeneie ear PranereeaeSdCeraleetotaaNeen Bete lane ant Stn fae208,Woe evepcanHytTHa ES. epommenteat eeehk ge fnSdol thc UrCelaatpps trey arse beirfe Uger he Robert Welsbers Finn E Maas Prato Lab Aten WelTowers pmoeoerinetewigan enchngn dhe aterla, ‘tonal verde ell, and seeingpote Heabeadaneroy olesof ‘YtCieltieaeFC) wbichpatience earthedple iygem ‘hinaaehnjascesnhl Wlonatemuubaon tbe peaoreeen, PnWelterwat ceumaingarmen theXAGLegal etme Her an hertsAppetite re ‘wap he woreoath polynatnthe mateaderacaraInlon eeveelc Jones PeeSasothe SopromeGangelWgdhe US. CouaApeher fOatnnbls Chet ti 78, rolbearWuneenhia}. foeSafad Law Schouwhee be ses Preset eatenLaw Review, resWelersoarerhelinhSein ellen bearbeitenLe Shot ae10, frfoany Wageee 2 PangHarleened bl petenoraSinan Cateye, Orshar amsatche be ne fhealkaiessalitaernetonae TerastetrateNrai4Ck Ba 69 Emeriti Barbara Babcock stJn CrownPeso! La tort inspec0lkiaeaeahcmeraee fer eynd sat mese elpeda.pte beeae aa Sbemenroa wea abermntayKier he sheaonne CSPepe ew Hetectns digite.g aaeei haeten ene piSalehn PE sheenth 1the He ees Sve he aleihla ipiea emer he lrfu ene lea Cinof Sp Iniaaaaierelatete waeaeewe woe Ed RenaeWii Paul Brest Prfesr of Law, Emacs, and Fomor ean Aker lonacnent catmsceoalane SeatonLeneYoule nen he preddcoey the Wie antiwhtFoi0, wheeal plletroplergo tented loshingsocalweenpliers ia tbe aitSoterand trond te reminati eccrinedeepenafncrelinetsprangeng ertetmenisci.searBot essownAsari Academy ofArsale shotsmeaty recseiHanusery SelaawdSaarClee Befing ‘sultSed Gly i8, eeeaaearANUS CaneelApeeeFink ‘acssloie. Macon feCS. Scie Cam aAialow wbhe NAME Lat DateanaionFtAc, ‘Wallan Coten Wendl and Eat. Cath Pree a, ars Asidellaaieatolgureathe MiAten petted, WlCan te eneene Matosyleconti Javea, whiehscutessaltwhe stnschooleiteden,PoeGlenhe eetant ineHehai profesor 2 Arona SateLierCalg he eredatheMs sasnitVingene Dae fennelye9 he 4pawEtheneEankaaes SchufLwonthe Unoery M MancaLnShaentactWitham, Dg of he Spree Ca ance €. Diaksan Prolesar of a, Emerius, an Former Dar of he Renti Law Urry hetCama an Lis to 1 ptiining the oa Ls ely e187 heenprow aaeeating LandaSieUneaeChe, fnmtayameloragpininona he aceTaSe ef La as Mace &, Frankia Fearon. abnPnLam Eves \ousmvn ire hate SE Friaies pecaheeeela tlen oti stan attiaearlhe foes sth. Mlapes eke cee ne ncerake pasate tee hrblilara Vin "onesiesalin iCee hy Sante Sh Ine chSenseae set elilegeLaSeal i18 i kaie neaya te vue Se ‘Wiidam B, Gould (Chaes A. Boards Frum of Ly, rte Aultsefelrato ag, WigAZoen tassts oan nsgemeriehaia erentcv ashi Ninel ahrWhe beof ae NaannoneHeteroaio ad etn ne hannielags,tongheVRwypateteHohe Vasa MmeAcland the sorLegeRael aprHeineGes He eureserie iulepoee harIe BreenAver. slingiotaectionvgnArielsecined nar of noe besamarsbnwreceal,PoGonInesiiid tempersrent grainDyofThirPsgrefMStb asiagstae, aloe avin: tne MlsatAASenPreeina ecgoisneaHeatshk AliceacunttchelaborircaterfataLa Avy HE eonape Fe a WayneSatherLaSeteund naam tein the Non tet ReaBaskwefGedAkek ‘Theraes ©. Grey eon Bowman Swetearant Mare, Suen Prleseo as,Enis ‘tongesteanaoa fleeruptolaverogueCCfA 5) tat men esonieen heveechhihlhoweon, lnmeto sainttheopenOrWenHahn. leybisects nei breaey inlleheanssinais ba a onstageeneeb30yar Preernein be enerAcaAea ekeserchan airyiege romhe yea Heeigen) {aley107. eservessce TredMpaSaneGo el aig StyWgeC, Gaa sfaiec 71 Thomas ©.Helier ews Tact and Nadine HeaSonPelesof otro agaStuds, Fntels {aetnaene, obrye, tl eectamlHe hn bce reckon 8wheconnate lorideenes He elleshea sins Rue of Lam Programe wel athe Sunadal Prgrt in mevalonate, Peano Hees ashes ing poserespeLeiCiti, Chairol Lana Hing Song (noreicamlrc be ep herribeFeteSgake Gr bineonseae {enswhehela masontw:ewe trnnieetee te White {erEason ingheawetnahh HP etepe ao te errot WhtLaed ulattraee onervaisofC Colh, Miguel A. Méndex deer, Seat Protea cf Lew, Ecatoe gaincernplierhtIeeemrdhneh Amann yalDee dvesdomtRal Caloratel Amivence. Mioceneeredes heim. foreexpea. leche Inthe eld of esters. An itrangws sate lefrere Yn alos eweabtfin the relCRFccs desanneriesos rin. ened merie ‘adcani aneel ene fheencantailLaShaye 17 reMnwsdepp efterie tueCayPie endsOf dpce Foros Rol LegoAshamed astaatceteMio nea Legal ceraan lea Faneyncaverlerathe. Con ChieemakesiUS. Sear Aon Crate8) abet ib Reon Ca iiHeaont he Cali Job Henry Maryan Ntson Gowran Sule ard Nol 9. Seles Petes of Law. Ener, ard Ast Prono Une Carta lAri Averellarenesexpenhupen vey steathuel plispealoy ee vncothdcsHet ecenoe retreiona 92empiJon VeyMert iranYano chanhe terMeraf he lt RepubenadecorateNamieHoc oe(ie VeganTree, nd sesxeaFelipeudPtetn mesgn tsar oft Les SampehBlaplCoiehegfChto: ais Arianois Bape to 03Yolen learneteAmareComps L's ine AseAunieaortacatcura Sine" atilbsGoes eliealightRecah Prosi al de MSFle SaCheLoe NeftheSto!Schrly David Rosenhaa Protas of Law and Pryce, Eras cllae:aplain be atin of yeewabebthepore tial be pcenangetmwl ory emul for Reuha A autor ertheeeylibahtfost,“engSn Ieee Per"Hel threaia AckethAraneaeerehhoalie Wolo Cole font Uren efileSanLSEanHanameer rote Clg. Pinca es: aleelegs.ilaeaeh rpcFtcsivnal Tinola ecrerat in EndPenaphon ar Remenne Soayuinues Setn CahersDaron Pien 72 Emeriti Kawneth E. Soott FalM. Parsons Pesaro Law bel sins, menos eonSeoMor and ninepedoemiatrtalesteecach ee,i eing seusbofemt Baseremaeorpineeswresolfra lesrseteerleiequcenteeoncenies iseiey eoneaeiicainecoer reraaep iWer, FeelpiinaryPratoSeni xennagopervg ttn Fre Contin. yest.HilAnantScises He ‘dina earuteShai FeeResbeveCoane Filsnide Rovodabe. du ibeSiteBar "ACsMidlahtile. foreottLSetfeb LR eer suseett ese Ferteeel,eldypasumsahsterGiensawar pbe ecti Mowe Kerk ihSion& Crome Michael . Wald ekaon Bl Reais Prost d!Law, Ee Deeplyecttheaterhile’ ihn alanagcexpewoptemae's ‘aes sulnwie, Ml-e adheilearcnenrenceraneaher Heineef he Fesingalouotegl dyovasem neltaeeAecan BieAenSe (ele CisAbonat Neel wllcorel and eet replngcild weie.Pesor ‘Wasser qageneracuear1parent of Heh elaSveayhert toneraim. excite tern ftwSnPnelirDepartmeat of man Senti senior ahs the rolbelieFla MeeYulecuanPeeYtCondah tanaed peiretcuedFes He leabesi a mcuher sf heSi! Lalnly i 57. Howard Re Wika Rast E Paratse Peso tual Resues Lou, rst Hoard len wihmt x on rsofeen theSaf)tmdE. tohd fisted eseanenf lennyeager hosp, st heonglrgfhe erfac awamr lelathecuthofiremiehtimtethemk (tanruneeaten ners(landCahnniceaates Feeeve JointStLeSvcb iI. hema goCasUaSeaashe leyFnai adr vile. avin ome oeH-aepre 73 Exhibit 29 74 e e e ) to 2 3 4 ry 16 a 8 is 20 ai 2B 24 Pry 26 2 28 HENNIGAN, BENNETT & DORMAN LLP 5. Michael Hennigan (SBN 59491) ‘Allison Check (SBN 206015) [Paul B. Derby (SBN 211352) ie ibdlawyers.com iguerou Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, Calliomnia 90017 Telephone: (213) $94-1200 Fax; (213) 694-1734 MITHODE LAW FIRM. /Richara Warren Mithoff (admitted pro hac vice) Sherie Potts Beckman (admitted pro fae vice) Joseph R. Alexander,Jr, {admitted pro hae vice) ‘One’Allea Center 500 Daltas Street TeepeGayeelephone: (713) 654-1122 Fax: (713) 739-8085 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID i. SAPERSTEIN DAVID, SAPERSTBIN, Plainsist, va PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKERLLP, a California timited liability partnership; ad Does 1 thmogh 10, } Defendants, Rep Pt) pep(Re) chti OOBe f a pepiet g ¢ eer|g * ORIGINAL surgeTEEDgen Oct 2.02009 a Eee"aera POY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Case No. BC 393920 [on, Mary Ann Murphy} PLAINTIRFDAVID I, SAPERSTEIN'SEVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND.REQUEST TO STRIKE DECT.-ARATIONOF LAWRENCEC, MARSHALLFILEDIN SUPPORTOFOPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT PAUL. HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER ELPTO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF GIBSON DUNN SCRUTCHERLLP Date: November 5, 2009 ‘Tine: 8:30 am, Dep't 25 ‘Action Filed: July 7, 2008 ‘Trial Date: September 22, 2010 He ni ca n Be uw er t& De nm an Ue @ 8 Plaintiff David 1. Saperstein hereby objects to and moves to stikethe Declarationof |} Lawrence C, Mec (he “Marshall Declaration”) Filedin Support ofthe Opposition of Defendant Paul. Hastings, Janofeky & WalkerLLP to Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification of Gibson Duo & Crutcher LLP, The Marshall Declaration is hing snore than a legal briefdovoidofsupporting authority that occasionally uses the phrase “in tay opinion”in order to pretend it is something else. The Mazshall Declaration should be stricken aiifit Considered by the Court,i ‘Toe Marsball Declaration isimproper legel opinion. “An experts testimony on an issue of |) taw is not admis oy nctadingan application ofthe law to facts. The expert's testimony on these snatters usurpthe judge's and jury's responsibilities.” Je¥PERSON’S CAL. Evi0.BENCHROOK, | § 30.64; see alto Steiden AppelCo, v, Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal 3d 863,884 (1989); Summers Gilbert, 69Cal. App, Ath 1155, 1180 1999)(prohibition against admission ofen expert's opinion lot a question of aw); Ferreira ». Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. 38 Ca. App. 3d 120,125-26 (1974). Tnterpzeting California law and applyingit to the facts isthe province ofthis Court, not someone paid by Pal Hastings for his “opinion” lofProfessors Marshal's opinions concern how the Court should rae on the Motion, Californiatw bers such opinions. Stanners, 69 Ca App. sth at 118285(ling McConancx on EVIDENCE). As Summers explained: "{W]henan [expet's opinion amouts to nothing more than an expression otis or her belifon how meate 18 should be decided,does uot aid the eros itsapplants theca.” Lat 1183 emphasis in original), | 19 || see also Cal. Evid. Code § 801(a) (only permiting exper testimony“elated toa subjectthat is 20 || sufficiently beyond common experience thatthe opinion of an expert would assist the tierof fact— In addition, Professor Marshall is ot suifii tly qualified to render an “opinion.” “Fo } determine that a witness qualifies as nn expert the judge raust ascertain ‘ithe has special knowledge, kil, experience, raining, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subjectto which |p testimony relies.dior» Las Angles County Flcod Conrel Di, 8 Cl $4 689,701 (2073), Am exper in a panieular Geld inust have appropriate knowledge osto that particular fed Pébpte v. Kirg, 266 Cal. App. 2d 437, 456 (1968). A ceview of Professor Marshall's Curriculum 27 |] Vile maces cow tet ne snot qualified order an “expt” opiaion regarding Califo ary focus ia the death penalty,he has spent much of his careerseeking ! 28| cisquatiication nw. His | ATSB OBVECTIONSAi REQUEST70 STRIKE MARSHALLRCEARATION | ‘o overturn wrongfulcriminal convictions (@ noble pursuit, but one that has nothing to do with the {issues at hand),and be has never published on any topic related to legalethics or professtonal respotsibiity. (Marshall Deel, Ex.A; Suppl, Derby Deel, x. 15.) He did not start teachingin California until 2005, und heis not even a member of the California Bar. For almost his entire career,he has been a Ifinois lawyer and has taughtin Hlinois. Hedoesteach a singe, 2-unit course in “Lawyer's Ethics,” ut a review ofthe course’s dest ion makes clear thet itislargely clinical, concentrates on crimrinsl law, does not focus on California law, and does aotexpressly regard thc issues ofconflicts arattorney disqualification. Professor Marshall docs not teach either lof the more substantive 3-unit courses in “Legal Ethles” or “Professional Responsibility" taught at Stanford Law School. lnstead,these courses are taught by his colleagues Norman W. Spaulding and [Deborah L. Rhode. Untike Professor Marshall, whose “Biography” mentions nothing about expertisein legal ethics or professional responsibil the first Line of Professor Spauldigg's “Biography”states that he is a “nationally recognized Scholarinte arca of professional responsibility,” and the fitst fine of Professor Rhode's “Biography” states that sheis “ane ofthe county'slegalseliolacs”i the field of legal ethics. tt appears thet Professor Marshal! is not even } dhe “expert” on legalethics and professional responsibilityathis ow Inw school. | Incredibly, athough Professor Marshatl’s “opinions” are improper and he bas no apparent expertise fa California disqualification law, Paul Hastings repeatedly cltes to Professor Marshall's Declaration as the soie support for certsin legal and factual assertionsmade in its Opposition. (See, Je.g:, Oppo. at 115-17, 416-18, 5:23-24, 6:24-19, 9:13-18, 10-5, 10-23-26, 11 -14, 15:15-16) fon theissues of imputation, despite the fict that Gibson Dunndid not oppove the issue or the ise of its vicariousdisqualification in its Opposition. (See Marshall Usl, 4933-38.) j,_ Forsach ofthe reasons stated above, Mr. Saperstein respectfullyrequests thatthe Court sthike the entire Marshall Declaration and qot considerit in ruling on the Motiog. Iathe alternative, My. Saperstein seis Forth the following ebjections to specific paragraphs ofthe Marsha!l Declaration jf ih reepectlly requests thet the Court sustain each of these well-founded objections. Professor Marshall slso opines on issues not even raised by Paul Hastings ixits Opposition, such as | lie, if |e 77 MATERIAL OBJECTED TO GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION Professor of Law at Stanford Law Kedoes not qualify Professor School (‘Stanford"), where Lalso servs Marshall to render any opinion 3 the David & Stephanie Mills Director on California law rogardingthe ‘of Clinioal Education and the Associme disqualificafion of lawyers, Deenfor Clinieat Education, Thave which topic is omitted from the studied, tuueht, dono research,and paragraph. Miller v. 1.4. County practiced in the field ofprofessional Flood Control Disz,, Cel. 3d responsibility for more than 20 years. 1 689, 701 (1973). tgught coursesin Professional Responsibilityst Nosthweatem University School of Lawin Chicago |} between 1987 and 2004. Thave tnught many courses in the Law of Lawyeritg j |snd Profesiond Resporsibity cnee | arriving at Stanford Law Schootin { 2004." | ; | 2. Marshall Deck, “Tserved as |2. This paragraph | the Reporter ta the linots Supreme it daes not qualify Professor } Court Committee on Professional Marshallto renderany opinion Responsibility during the mid-1990s. tn oa California lawregardingthe that capacity I worked on theflinois disqualification oflawyers, Rules of Professional Condact and also which topicis omitted from the ‘examined the nutes and decisional law of | paragraph. Miller v. L.A. County‘aay other slatesincluding Californie.” | Rlood Control Dist, §Cal. 34 689, 701 (1973), In fac, the peragraph makes clear thet Professor Marshall knows Hlinois Jaw, having only been sometimes exposed more than a decade ago fo general law ofCalifornis regardingprofessional conduct, evant. 3. Marshall Dect...4: “Iam 3. This paragraph ening with maters relating (0 ik does not qualify Professor proftssional responsibility and,ia Massball to renderany opinion sealer, those pertaining to Conflicts of on California lawreading the interest relating fo former clients. I have disqualification of lawyers, researched and studied these issues which topic is omitted from the extensively. {a addition, [dave paragraph. Miller vA. County ighifcant personal experience in this Flood Control Dist, 8 Cal. 34 because those fasues often arise in| 689, 701 (1973). Virwally any 1 content of managing the clinical lasryer would an “expext™ on | drogram at Stanford, given the many California disqualiftestion lawif f ns thatthe aiomeys and the students this was suficlent. the clinic have represented both while | Stanford and during earlier | aployement.” 3. SPECIFICOBJECTIONS TO MABSHALL DECLARATION iPROPOSED] \ MamballDecl92: “lama 1. This paragraphisirrelevant, RULIN 1 Sustained 0 Overmled 5 Sustained Overruled 1DSustained O Oversuled Blele BL PLAINTIAPS BVIDENTIARY GOBIECTIONS AND REQUEST TO STRIKEMARSHALL DBOLARATION 78 L ~MATERIAL OBJECTED TO Marshal! Decl, 4 5: i aeeeeeraiane an expec witness of consultantin fessionalethies in various | juistictions,including California.” i Jo 5s. Decl; “this my ‘opirion, which [conveyed to Gibson ‘Dun, thatthefrm is not required as a law towithdraw frm this matter.” & M flo.TEow be Motion for Disqualification that Mt. Saperstein has filed and to determine ‘whether anything in that Motion or the accompanying declarations end documents affects my opinion that ‘Gibson Dunn |s net required ag & matter | withdraw from this matier, ARer Tastowithdraw from “The jleged conilict ofinterest ix this case is cai tt Gibson Dumis jmuttaneously representing ctieats with erse interests. When Gibson Dunit a matter of the goveraing ethical rules and of the governing ethical rules and law to reviewing those materials,it remains my opinion tha Gibson Dunn is notrequired a5 a ater ofthe governing cthicalrules 4. ‘This paragraph is inelevant i does not qualify Professor ‘Marshal o render any opinion an California law regardingthe disqualification af anyers, hich topicis omitted from the paragraph. Miller y L.A. CoxntyFlood Control Dist, § Cal,34 689, 701 (1973). Inaddition, Profestor Marshallfiled to provide aitofhis past representations. As sich, not calyis there noevidence of bis past represcuttions, or te topics ‘on which Behas been engaged, but we have no wayoftesting thee past engagements, Jnluding whether these past engagements evidence bins. ‘This paragraph is 20 { insproper legal opinion and improperly opines on how the Court should rule on the Motion | See, eg, Summers v, Gilbert, 69 Caf. App. Ath 1155, 1180 (1999), see alsa Cal. Zvid, Code § 801 Italsolacks foundation. Cal. ‘This paragraph is anStapropes legaloption end improperly opines on bow the oust should rule on the Mation, See, e.g.,Summars . Gilbert, 69 Cal. App. ath 1155, 1180 (1999); ee also Cal. Bvid, Code § 802 ‘This paragraph also lacks foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403(a), Professor Mecahall never says what authorities he is relying dpon to reach his fegat conelusicns. This paragraphis an aproper legal opinion and improperly opineson how the Court should rale on the Motion See, £.8. Summers. Gilbert, 69 fodertookthe cepresentationoff Paul | Cal. Ne ‘4th 1155, 1180 (1999Hastings in tis in this civil professional see also Cal, Evid. Code § 801.tityaction. nolawveret Gibson This nsasranh alsolacka. 73 GROUNDS¥OR OBJECTION | Evid, Cod § 403fa). AL: "Lwasthen [6 foe 1D Sustained (PROPOSED) RULING O Susteined F Overruled O Overntied 2 sated | Overmukd 79 ‘Dunn was roprescating } ‘on any matter.” % —MarshallDedl9.12: “Rather, the conflict of interest that Mr. Saperstein alloges is based on the fact ‘that Orin Snyder, a lawyer who is now a partner at Gibson Dunn, oxce represented Mr. Sapersizin in 0 crimninal imaiterthat concluded well before Gibson Dunn undertookthe represeatationofPaul Hastings inthe torrent tigation. The actual work that Mr. Sayder did on st matter took place when Mr, Snyderwas a purtnet nt the Jawfirm of Manat, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.[heroinafter Manatt Phelps] prior to Mr. Snyder's movingto Gibson in 2005. This isa claim, then, about 2 “former-client conflict,’ L¢., an allegationrelating to Gibson Dunn's Gulesto aformer client ofaay atomey whois now at Gibson Dunn.” Evid, Code § 702, ‘Cal. Evid. Code §.403(9), Moreover, Professor Marshall lacks pervonal knowledge of the statements | sade in this paragraph. Cal, 8 Professor Mezshal) ruischaracterizesthe fact of his ‘ase and Ineks personal O Overied |inovwledge ofthe statements madein his paragenph. Cal Evid. Code § 702. In addition, {is paragraph isan improper Jegal opinion and imprepedly opines on bow the Court shuld rule on the Motion, See, e.g, Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal App. | } ib 1135, 1180 (1999); see also” | Cal. Evid, Code § 891, ‘This paragraph also lacks foundation Cal Evid. Code § 403(0) [PROPOSED] RULING 5 Sustained 9. Marnball Deol 913: “a assessinga claio ofan alge forme: client confitofinterest, some besio principles ernecgein California lave and the widely accepted law ofother jurisdictions, upon which my opinions ae based. The iw does not preclude a lawyer or law fim from undertaking representation against a partysimply bbecause that adverse party was once 2 client of the laeyer oflew Hr, Unie carencioat, @ former cleatis not generally ented to his previous Tnveyer's loyally (ubject toa very Ticnted exespioninvolving instances in sich he ier is tacking the pre ‘gutcome the lawyer secured on bel 3c forenerclent—a station wi levanoe[nthe mater now under gonsideraion). Hence, although 2 | Sewyer may not (in the absence of alient| fpasent) undertake any representation | versto the interests of current tien, na such per ce rute applies to a fof |Llawyerundersakingrepresentation |against successiverepresentations. improper legal opinion and improperly opines onhow the |G. Qvermuled ‘Court should rule on the Motion. See, eg Suntmers » Gilbert, 69 Cal. App. Ath 1155, 1180 (1999); see also Cal, Bvid, Code § 301 I Moreover, Professo: Marsbali |celesupon“the widely accepted i | taw of other jurisdictions”in i} k | 9, ‘This paragraph is 20 5 Sustained | reaching his conctusions, which foreign tow seitspecified | (but js presumably Winoislaw,as | that is the law Professor Marshall i actually atows) norrelevanta mmotlon under Californialaw. This pamgranh also lacks foundation. Cal. Bvid. Code $ 403(2). The paragraph is also irelevant. Mi, Sapersioin has never argued for, and the Motion does not rogerd, parse rule 80 e n w ) Bes ner y& D o m i i i 3 TED TO adverse fo Theitsrests of aformarlien” 10. Marshall Decl 114° “Indeed, the taw recognizes that barring law: 3m undertaking representation on the sole ground thatthe adversary is 8 former clignt would baveanextremely these principles to matter of Gibson improper legal opinion andDunn's contimoed representation of Paul impropesty opines on how the 0) Overruled| Hastingsinthe above-captioned case, the Court shouldrule onthe Motion,former representation celevanthere was See, e.g, Summers v, Gilbert, 697 Orin Snyder's baving once represented Cal, App. 4th 1155,1180 (1999), g Bavid Sapersinin fn relationtoa criminal see ase Cal, vid. Code § 801 ‘grand jury investigation into Mr ‘Moreover, Professor Marshall Sapessteln's investments in a Bond relies uponthelaw ofother 9 || Linked Issue Premium Structure jurisdictionsin reaching bis 10 {|| CBLPS). By contrast, the current conefusions, which foreign law is i] representation involves Gibson Dunn’s nelthorspecified (but is|} representation of atl Hastings in e suit presunuablyUinalsla, asthat ia }1.11 by Mr.Saperstein allegingthe Paul the lawProfessor MarshallHastings commited malpractice by |_| scually knows)nor relevant toa failing o propety advise Mr. Saperstein | motion under Californiaa |} about how to setup a must and ensure} This paragraph also lacksthat a particular piece ofret stat foundation. Cal. Bvi. Code} would'not be treated as community | §403(a), Moreover, Professorpropertyin the evont of dissolution ofhis} Marshall lacks personal |marriage orotherwise be awarded to his. | knowledge ofthe statements wife. Nothing in Mr. Saperstein's sult | nado in tis paragraph. Cal,sgtint PouHating bat anything todo Bvid Code § 702 ‘with te criminal implications off BLIPSinvesoent. Nor doe Me, Sapersiein's sat ageinat Paul Hastings relate to any substantiaily related issues | such as Mr. Saperstein's investments in othertex shells, On thet face, therefore,theeis nothing ebout these |} tsmatters thet reer thena 20 ‘substantially related” in a manner that 1 foreciosos Gibson Dunn from Iretenting PauHastings inthis roster. 3 Bs aoeays possible todiscuss e current | | 1 and former faater ata high enough level ofabstraction that they could be | 23 describedas ‘substantially related.” Here, for example, one could say that a ‘cases genericallyimvolve Mr. japersiein’s finances. The ‘substantial 25'Ul ielesionship” tet, however, demands & Birimoretac specie and concrete | 26 |||Showing of substantive overlap.” TBS artattDeek. $19: “ote 35. Thigpermempbican | Sovtsined |23g ||| Sepentetn's Motion ts Disquaify improper egalopin aedGibson Dunn alleges tat Gibson Dunn improperly opiaes on how the | Overruled [BCARETIPS EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS AND REQUEST STRIKEMARSHALL DECLARATION i e @ MATERIAL OBJECTED TO GROUNDS FOR OBIECTION | PROPOSED] 17 i__ RULING ‘barred from proceeding with its | 4 representation ofPaul Hastings inthis See, e.g Summers v. Gilbert, 69 matter because, amoug other reasons, Cal. App, Ath 1135, UEB0 (1999); Gibson Dunn asked severe! questions see also Cal. Bvid, Code § 801 |about the BLIPS crimins investigation Morcover, Professor Marshall | | diving a depsion, Ia myopin, he j fact that a few questions were asked jn jutiictionin reaching his 4discovery does aot orete a ‘substantial ronciusions, which oxeign lewis irelationship’ between th two matters. | neither specified (out is Nor does it show that anythingrelating presurablyIinolas,as that isto tho BLIPS criminal mater fs thelaw ProfessorMarshall ‘material io Gibson Dumn'songping acually knows) nor relevant | |representation of Paul Hastings. As the motion under California Inv }dloclatation of Kevin S, Rosca This parngraph also lacksestablishes, those quesions were asked foundation. Cal. Evid. Code {tatimethathe was unaware of any § 403(8), Moreover, Professorconceivable conflict) as partofa broad Marshall lacks personal series Of questions about # large number knowledge oftho sistements | ‘Fties tatmight heve led to relevant made inthis paragraph, Cal, | information and might bave eeiblished Evid. Code § 702 i |) that other axes of inquiry ere aot televant in this tigation. Such donct clevate a matter tothe ‘substantially elmed” case or transform otherwise‘relevent information into ‘materially relevant” information” |ee | 16, Dre 20: “Ineny —|16, This paragraph is an © Sustained eante iimpeoper legal opinion and explains, Gibson Duna (on behalf ofits improperly opines on how the C. Overruled lien, Pac Hastings)has nointerest in| Court shold rule onthe Motion, {‘ny firther information aboutthe BLIPS See, e., Suamars v. Gilbert, 69criminal matter, and nothing about the Cal. App. Ath 1135, 1180 (1995); criminal investigation will Be made an see alsa Cal. Evid. Code §'201. issue inthis case. Tn light ofthis posture, Moreover,Professor Marshall it is evident that nothing about the BLIPS criminal matiers is “substantially related" tothe carent representation and conclusions, whiek foreign law is thatnothing Mr. Snyder learned about naither spectsed (batIs ‘that subject is material to Gibson Dunn's presumably Hinolaw, w thatis i‘ongoing representation of Paul Hastings. the law Professor Marshall ‘This s consistent with the repeatediy actually kmows) nor relevant to a s o l i d i ca | expressed views of Mr. Saperstein’s motion under California law. He | oul tha notingabout th criminal lo mistats tho law end applies | Fuvestigation of BLIPS isic ny way erroneous law. This paragraph Jevunt fo the currentftigation. No also lacks foundation. Cal. Evid. i acing conflict oxists, then, based on Code § 403(a). Moreover, iy connection between this case and Professor Marshall lacks personal [sues pectwining to the criminal BLIPS knowledge ofthe statements ‘vestigation Mr, Soyder handled. See made in this paragraph. Cal EMG Recordings, ine. » Myspace, Ine.. Bvid. Code § 702. 926 F. Supp.ad 1046, 1062 (CD. Ca firm’swlatlonthat * | PAINTSEVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS AND REQUEST 10 STRIKE MARSHALL DECLARATION ‘would not be p substantiully elatedto a prior representation obviated any reason for isquelification)." the Issue that was i MATERIALOBJECTED TO [GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION| I i | PROPOSED} | RULING __| | 17 Mar : “tn | addition to claiming that Gibson Dunn's | questions aboutthe criminal BLIPS investigation tender these tvo matters substantially related, Mr. Sapeestin's \ Stoton to Biaguality makes far more attenuated-—and is my apizion tunsustafnable clan. it claims that becmuse Mr. Snyderdealt with a crrminal fnvestigation thet involved advice Mr Sapersieiarecelved from KPMG on the sperlouofthe legality of DLIPSi follows that Mc. Suyder (aed asa resus, Gibson Dunn) is forever bared from {aking on any representation adverse to ‘Mr. Sapersten on any mater is which fis relationship with KPMG might be relevant, no mater bow unelated to the BLIPSissue or the criminal investigation. The problem with this } arguonent is thal it does nat address (be } core question ofsubstantial or material factual and lege! relationahip—shich focuses on ths substaztive fromral and legal overlap ofthe former sud current represeatations. Insoad, Mr. Seperstein's Motion to Disqualify fooks only to the Wentty ofthe individuals and ents involved in the canes, As always the case thal lawyerlearnsa significantamount ofinformation about a cient—inelidingthe clients interaction with family, fclends and advisors. ‘This does not ean thet any case in which such relationshipa might be relevant is therefore ‘Substantially related” to an | eaclercasetht touched on those tionshipsin other contexts and with gan to other issuss.” 6, MargbellDuel,922 “Tochude otherwise—Le,, co an overlap inthe identity of dividualsinvolved is enough to stitute ‘substantial relaticaship’—is inconsistent with the ways in whichthat applied by courts, Were overlay ¥7._ This paragraph is an {mmproper legal opinion end ‘maproperlyopines on how the Court should rule on the Motion, See, eg., Summers v. Gilbert, 69 | ‘Cal. App, 4th 1155, 1180 (3999); | see also Cal. Bvid, Code § 801. Moreover, Professor Marsal! relles upon the law of other jurisdiotions in reaching bisconctusions, which foreign law is neither specified (but fa | presumably Winols Taw, a that is the law Professoc Marshall actually knows) nor relevant toa motion nde California ew. He also misstates the lav and ‘wrongly applies erroneous iw. This paregraphalso lacks foundation, Cal. Bvid. Code § 403(0)- Morcover, Professor ‘Marshall tacks personal ‘moped ofthe tears sade ia this avid Code §108 18, This paragraphian improper legal opinion and improperly opines on how tae ‘Court should rule on the Motion. See, eg., Summers v, Gilbert, 69 Cal. App. 4th i155, 1580 (1999); 10. Lsee.also Cal Evid. Cote$80). | C1Sosteined | 8 Overvied SF Sustained D Overrated ove rt &Q op vn a ie i in identity enough, any forties cleat could assert im any case thatthe client's ‘own involvement in both matterscreates {0 identlty overiaptet constinutes © ‘substawil relationship.” ‘Thatmost tainly aot the way in which te Law apples the test, for such a loose | spproach tothe‘substantial relationship* | eswould warn thgeceral rule lowing | | representation on is head. The focus, then,is uot on whethersomeindividuals areinvolved in both matters, butis | instead on whether there isa ‘aubstantal relationship” between the factual and legal substance ofthe two matters.” MATERIALOBJECTEDTO|GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION [® ‘Moreover,Professor Marsball relies upon the law of ofker jwisdictions in reaching his conclusions, which foreign law is neither specified (bat is presumably [Minois law,ax thatis the law Professor Marshall sctuelly knows) nor relevant to & motion under California Jaw. He also misstates tho law and applies { eroncous law. This paragraph also lacks foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 4030}. Moreover, ProfessorMarshalllackspersonal kaowiedge of the statements made in this paragraph. Cel. Evid. Code § 702. ROPOSED| RULIN 19, hall Dech, 123: “Forthese | 19. This paragraphis an 5 Sustainedreasons, that Mr. Spyder improper legal opinion andinterviewed several of Mr. Saperstein's | impropedy opines on how the |. Overuledadvizors ebout specific issues relating to | Court should me on the Motion, the BLIPS critninal investigation and} See, e.., Sunimers v. Gilbert, 69reviewed documents relating to the Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); |advisors? coles in advising Mr. see also Cal. Evid. Code § 801,‘Sapecstein about the legality of the Moreover, Professor MarchalBLIPS investmems, docs not mean that purports to rely upon the law of Gibson Dunn isconflicted from otherjurisdictions, which isundertaking any representations adverse | imelevant hove. He also misstates10 Mr. Saperstein in which distinct issues the law and swrongly appliesrelatingto those advisors may be at erroneous jaw. ‘This paragraph |issue. Were such intesviews to create a xo IneXsfoundation. Cal, Evidbar, & lawyer wouldbe barred ftom ever Code § 403(a). Moreover,undertakinga representation averse fo a | Professor Marsball Incks personalformercant given the ieviabliy of knowledge ofte statesthe lawyer having iterviewed madiin this paragraph. Celreccived records from andrelating to the Evid, Code § 702.former elicat.” ‘ie oe =20. Mughal! Deol. $24: “Mt. 20. This paragraph is x 5 Sustained| SareesMacabtagpeasio frsoper ge Spon eetallege that withdraval or disqualification | improperly opines on how the 11 Overru‘edare in order here because Mr. Snyder Court should rule on the Motion. |feared some specific confidencesthet See, e,, Summers ». Gilbert, 69relovaatfo the instant fiigation. Ttis Cal. App, 4b 1155, 1180 (1999),opinion, which {have conveyed to see also Cal. Evid. Code § 801.ibson Dunn, thet given its having Moreover, Profestor Marshallised itself that Mr, Sayder never | relies upon the ew ofother‘bared confidential information Jurisdictions in reaching hissternly relevent io the ongoing ‘conclusions, which foreign tawis Jeter, and in the absence of any actual _| nether specified (but is toot tothe contrary, Gibson Dann fas presamably Hines lav, es thati‘no confliet arderes no season for io the ts al 86 1] MATERIAL ORIECTED TO ‘GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION | [PROPOSED] i RULING 2 withdraw or be disqualified fom His actually knows) norrelevant to aongoingrepresentation of Paul Hastings, motion under California law. He 4 Sce generallyEliot v. McFarland ‘also misstates the taw and appliesUnifled Schoo! Disiric, 165 Cal. App. erroneous law. This paragraph 4 3d $62, 572 (1985) (party seeking also lacks foundation. Cal, Evid, disqualificationmust, the absence of a Code § 403(a).. Moreover, 5 showingthat the two matters are Professor Marshall iacks personal ||| Wemselves ‘substantiatly related, make inowledgo of the statementsa | reecemaeoaky | orig ofee confidences were disclosed). Although } Evid. Code § 702, Professor 7/11 itis not my sole as an expert toresolve Marshall also purports to epine asany dispuled facts, my zeview of Mr. to Orin Snyder's credibility, 8 Seperstcin’s Motion to Disqualify which falls squarely within the || Gibson Dunn,the apcompanying, Couat’s purview. declarations, tod the declaration tubsmitted by Mr. Snyder revealsthat Mf 10 1) Snyderig steadfast that he oniy inquired | | about advice provided to Mr. Saperstein 11 |f segarding the legality under the tax laws ofthe BLIPS investments and bad no 42 interest in delving into any broader questions aboutthe role KPMG orothers | 13) were playing in any otherfacets ofMr. | |} Sopersiein’s fiomcialdealings. T have 14 Ul seen neo evidenos tothe contary that 4 woutd ead moto opine that Gibson | 15 11 Dunn has 2 diay to withdraw.” 418 Th 21, nfanbaltDect. 125: “Ait ofthe [21. This pargraph isan 5 Sustainedforegoing analysis presupposes a tmproper legal opiaion and "7-}] altwation in which the fonction and improperly opines on bow the 1 Overruledpurposeofthe limited probibition on Court should rule on the Motion. 18 |) successive representation applies ‘See, .g., Summers v. Gilbert, 69 because the attomey learned confidences Cal. App. Ath 1155, 1180 (1999), 191} inthe eatlier representation that continua see also Cal. Evid, Code § B01. to be confidential. None ofthis ‘Moreover, Professor Marghall 20 | reasoning would apply, though, in relies upon the law of otherInstances in hich any’ materially jurisdictions in reaching bis 21 |) relevantconfidences the attomey leamed | conciusions, which foreign law isfrom the former representation Rave | naither specitied (but is 22 ceased to be confidentia!—whnether. presumably Winois law,as thatis ‘because they have become public the lave Professor Marshall 23 Hl \rowiedge or because the former client ‘actually knows) nor relevant to ahas waived (explicilly or constructively) | motion under California law. He 24 W gay right to have the information retaain alsa enisstates the law,and citesonfidentia fn suck « situation, duere no authority forthe conctsions 25 I} senoreansining confidences to'be hhe reached. Tois paragraph also rected, and applying a rule designed lacks foundation. Cal Evid. 26 |l|&protect the forerclient'sconfidences Code § 403(0). kd be senseless (and wasteful ofthear ]easbeiones28|l! 22. Marshall Decl. 126: “Por 22, This paregraph is an © Sustatued PEARTTIRESEVIDENTIARYOBPETTONSANDREQUEST 70 STRIKEMARSHALLDECLARATION| He rs to n, Re we r& Co mm an sue MATERIALOBJECTED TO _ ‘ample, assume that former elient asserts a conflict on the ground that during the earlier ropresentation the Jawyot reviewed a memorandum from eraployment policies—a memorandum thatis materially relevant iganew | | malter in whichtho leseyer i i ‘undertakin former client. Ordinarily,that could | constitate resson to disqualify the { attomey from proceeding onbehalfof the new ellen, dependingon the details of the frei, circumstances and issues. | Botif that very docament was already in the public domain, because It was introduced into evidencein some other proceeding, there would be no reasoa, ‘etstoevr to pretoad tha dsquliing the levryer would preserve the | gonfdonos of te sit: See gency Restatement Third, The Law Governing ] Lawyers § 59 ‘Confidential cient information consists ofinformatio relating to the reprosentstion ofa client, ) other than information that is generally’ | known"). Any lawyer representing the | currentparty wouldhave reody access tothe dacument, se the former iawyer’s itherawal oF disqualification from the ‘representation would not serve any ingerest in preserving the confidentiality | of the documectin question. Asone | California court bas explained, Asquelifcation is not appropriate where teplacerneat ofcounsel “wonld leave the adversary inthe sarne position as before” with regard to tho disclosure ofthe information. See Neal v Health Nea | ms the basisof the motion :D | isqualify. Again, insuch & situation fhere are no confidences left to preserve, | ‘any now lawyer would have full 235 10 the information in question |is no reaon fa muck a case to |; disqualify the client's former lavryer(because that disqualification would nat_, PCAINTFES EVIDENTIARYGIECHIONS the clfent describlug the ciient’s general | Cal. App.4th 1155, 1180 (1999); representation adverse tothe | jurisdictions in reaching his {inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 831, $44 (2002).” -Lnsitherspecified |GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION Tnaproper legal opinion and inmpropecly opines on zow the { Court shoald male onthe Motion. See, 6.8, Summers . Gilbert 66 see also Cal. Evid. Code § 801. Moreover, Professor Marshall relies upon the law of other conclusions, which foreign law is neither spctid (huis ‘presumably Tlinols law, as thatis the law Professor Marshall |actually knows) nor relevant to 8 ‘motion under California law. He also misstatcsthe law, quoting the Nea! decision outof context to minke a point noveractually imaof conndeedbytheNea! court, This peragraph alslacksfoundation. Calvi. Code $4030). See, €.g., Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal, App. 4th 1155, 11801999), see also Cal, Bvid. Code § 801. Moreover, Professor Marshall relies upon the law ofother Jurisdictionsin reaching his ‘onclusions, which foreign law is but is ‘AND REQUEST1STRIKEWARSHALL OSLARATION TFROFOSED) RULING 0 Overruled 23. Marshall Decl. $27: “The same | 23. This paragraph is an © Sustainedprinciple would apply in an instance in| improper logal opinion and =| ‘whichthe client has waived the | improperly opines on how the |) Overrnledonfidentlality oftheinformation that | Court should rulo on the Mation. | i 88 He nm an , B ow ne ry & D om ss e ~~ MATERIAL OBJECTEDTO ‘divance the forme: cents oaly legitimate interes-—preserving the ‘confidentiality ofinfoemation that Femaine confidential.” 24, MarshallDecl.28° “For these reasons, even were this Court to conchae thas the subject of Mr. Snyder's formes representation of Mr. Saperstein and the subject ofthe currentlitigation ate substantially related, oF that Mi, Syder leamed confidences that are materialto the current matter, there ‘would still be no basis for disqualification if the celevant informationis no tonger confidential” “GROUNDSFOROBJECTION | [PROPOSED] | __RULING _ presumably Titnois law, as Ghats the law Professor Marshall actually knows) nor relevent to 2 | motion under California law. tle | elso misstates the ty, citing [solely nosupporting cate |tau, and igroring the controlling | California autho,Including | the Knight decision, which hok the opposite: that an etomey ust stilbe disqualified even if the privileged communications have all been disclosed. This paragraphalso lacks foundation, Cal. Evid. Code § 403(0, 24, ‘This paragraph is an ;ptoper legal Opinion and iepropenty opines on kow the ‘Court should rule onthe Motion See, eg., Summers v. Gilbert, 9 | 1 Sustained 3 Overruted Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999), see also Cal, Evid, Code § 801." | | Moreover,Professor Mershll 1sliea upon tho law of other jutisdictions in reaching bis Ffonchisions, which foreign law is |neither specified (but is presumably Iinois law, as thatis | the tawy Professor Mershell actually knows) nor relevant toa | motion under California lw. He also misstetes the law, cling absolutely no supporting case lave and ignorig the controlling, | California authorities,including | the Knight decision, which hotds I| the opposite: that ea atomey | srl be duaeen if the privileged communications faveal ben ictoso. The patagroph also ck fourdation Cat, Evid.Code § 403). a MarshallDeel.$28 “That cisely he situation that appearsto apply here, Inthe case now before theuit, Mr. Saperstein has sued Paul 1} Hastings forprofessional malpractice lating tothe adviceit provided in rucruring a tryst and the acquisition and developmentofwhat has beentermed the I iwood Estate." Ass matter of | NTFSEVIDENTIARYODIECTIONSANG REQUESTTO STARE MARSHALL DECLARATION 25._ This paragraph is an | improper lega) opinicnand ‘aaproperty opines on how the Court should male onthe Mation. See, .g,, Suramers v.Gilbert, 69 al, App. th 1155,1180 (1999); set also Cal, Evid. Code § 801 Moreover, Professor Marshall | reliesupobihelawofother | © Sustained Overruled a 89 10 u 2 3 4 1s 16 w 18 19 2 al 2B 24 25 Fd 28 law,tho filingof such a suit places at inate the professional advicethe plant| conelusions, which foreign aw is | neither specified (buts subject and nay otber aspectofhis claim { prestmabiy ilinols law, as that is | fie law Profesor Marshal | setully owows) nor relevent to 2 nea)related to the advice that [ motion undor Californie law. He the plaintif recived on the mater from | received from others relating to this and thus constitutes a waiver of any pelviloges (and,afortiort, any sonfid other lewyers and advisors. See generally Wellpoint Health Networks, | MATERIALOBJECTED TO GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION| jane reaching his also misstates the faci and law | applies erroneous av,including with respect ip the March 17 nc. ». Superior Court, $9 Cal. App. 4th Order, which Onder be is aot 110, 128 (1997), Indeed, Mr. Saperstein qualifed to interpret or apply. and Pant Hastings entered stipulation on March 17, 2009 thee reflects tis ies) principle. And this oa ‘This pamgraph also tacks foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403(0). Moreover, Professor Court has entered an Ordertothet very} Marshall lacks personal effect, The Order provides that Mr. Saperstein is waiving *hisattomey-client privileges applicable to documents and communicationsrelatingto," among ‘other subjects, the ‘eoquisition and evelopmentofthe property known ax 350 Catolwood of “Fleur de Lysi" ** * the characterization of assets pursuant 10 applivable family aw concemting the distinction betweenseparate versus ‘ormmunity property * * *; and Mr. Saperstein’ eatte planning * * *, as ‘ell asthe impact of suchestate planning on any actual or potential ‘pansections.” knowledge of the statements ‘made inthls paragraph. Cat Bvid. Code § 702 ~ PROPOSED)| RULING 26. Matshell Desl.130: “Asa result ofthis Order, a8 all asthe ‘underlying legal principles of waiver, ‘none ofthe potentially relevent informationthat Mi. Snyder might psy havetamed about Mr apersioln’s rl er advicors(inchuding lawyers) is confidential at is point. Any lawyer ‘who represents Paui Hastings in this 26. This paragraphis an {propeial Onion and improperly opines onhow the Coust should rule on the Motion. See, .g,, Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999), flonshipa with KPMGot see aiso Cal. Evid. Code § 801. Moreover, Professot Marshall relies uponthe law of other Jurisdictionsin reaching his tmalter is etitlod to seek discovery from | conclusions, which foreign lewis | and depose eayone-—inchuding Mr. | nether specified (but is Saperstein’ former fawyerr-—aboun any presumably Minois law, as that is ipforrastion pertaining to these eubjects. the lew Professor Marshall ‘pis, therefore, nonsensical under these actually knows) nor relevant toa cular end Somewhat pecuiar ithdraw based om (whl were once, but and. ‘no Jonger)confidences that Mf. yyder milght have leamed.” ~~“ BLAINTSRF'S EVIGENTIARY OBJECTIONS ANDREQUEST To STRIRE MARSHAEL DECLARATION ‘motion wader California Taw. He tanees to require Gibson Dunai | also raisstates the facts and law lies erroneous law, {including with respect 1 the March 19 Order, which Onder be ‘snot qualified to intespet og | D Sustained | & Overruled 90 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION [PROPOSED] H } e | _| RULING ‘apply. This paragraph also laeka foundation, Cal. Evid. Code | § 403(a). Moreover, Professor Marshaltake porsonal ‘ knowledge afthe statements | sade in this paragraph, Cal. 5 Evid. Code § 702 J Slilo7. MasshallDecla31: "in sum, |27. This paragraph isan, 1 Sustained } any information that Mr. Snyder learned improperlegal opinion and 7'Il during his representation of Mr, improperly opines on bow the UG OverruledSaperstein falls into one of two | Court sbould rufe on the Motion. 8 categories. Itiseithor not substantially | Sec, eg., Stunmers v. Gilbert, 69. 9 latedthe egal and facta mater at Cal. App. 408 £155,1180(1999), issue in this ease,in which case It see also Cal. Bvid. Code § 801 tciggrrs noconfit, Oritis substantially Moreover, Professor Marshall 10 11 related the tegal and facteal matters at relies upon the law of other issue bere, in which caseits jirisdictions in reachinghis 11 ll confidentiality has beon waived. Under | conctusions, which forcign law is 1z |Vethersexnaria,there ie ne reasonfor neither specified (but is ‘Gibson Dunn to withdraw orbe presumubly Hlinotsluw, as that isi| aisqualified” the law Professor Marshall t BY ‘tually knows) not relevant ipa I ‘motion under California law. He 4 \ also cuisstaiesthe law, which }i Fequites disqualification i thore|| isa sibstantat relationship‘ell betwaen the successive6 Ht resentaions regardless ofi whether there is proofthet the} Me lawyst acquired confidential informationduring the former 18] ‘representation. Professor oll Marshall appears to be making19] the law up ashe goes, ignoringH decades of controling case ai.20 ‘This paragraph alsolacksi foundation. Cal, Evid. Code2 | $4036). 22 {ll og, MarshallDeci..{132: “The force 28. This paragraph i an. 1D Sustained2g of tbe paiaciple—thatthere are no improper legalopinion and confidences to protect and thus no reason| iesproperly opines onhow the | “1 Overied |24 || 12 disqualify Gibson Dunn in orderto. Count shoutd rule on theMotion, itect non-existent confdencee-—is| | See eg, Summers. Gilberi, 69 |: ‘confirmed by examining Mr. Cal. App.4th 185,1180(1999), 8 tein’s claim thal Mr. Snyder | see also Cal, Evid, Code § 801. jastings to send Mr. Snyder ‘all files jurisdictions in reaching hisai; ting to Paul Hastings representation conclusions, which foreign law is | 2 of me.’ By definition anythingin these neither specified (butis. 1 | Hie id baadboondisclosed to Poll presmablyMingoashats | |REARS EVIDENTIARYOB EGTIONSANDREQUEST 135 ‘information as aresultof Me. | Moreover, ProfeeserMarshallae. 3's insteuctions to Paul | relies pon the Jaw ofother aaeation | suit. Pan! Hastings is, ofcourse, entitled (0 use any and al information it kaows to defead itself in this action, regardless cof whether itis defended by Gibson Dunn. Under these particular and poculiar circumstances, it would defy season, and be Inconsistentwith the policies and ulss articulated the applicable caselaw,to conclude that Gibson Dann must withdraw in oxder to protectthe confidentiality of anyfiles that Poul Hastings itselfsent to Mfr. |]] Snyder. In a situation such as this, hdl or digualifetion woud serve no purpose ‘because the client Continuesto proses the information and ‘will disclose itt replaceraent counsel— Jeaving the opposing partyin the identical postion.” Poul Vepnek, eta, CAL, PRACTICE GUIDE: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY | 43180 09)" 29, fo suggests that any ofthe individual lssryers who are working on behalf of Poul Hastings overrepresented Mr. for withdrawal or disqualification inthis ‘easeis, therefore, the product ofthe Absolute imputation principle —the presumption thet every lawyer in 8 fir knows whet any lawyerin the firm ~~MATERIAL OBJECTED TO stings—the very defendant in thls 1 MagalLDecl.133° “there [29. ‘Thisparagraph san Saperstein onany matter, Anyargument |] Sows." 1 i | | ly 3 2 a29. MastaDecl,4345“The ‘GROUNDSFOR OBJECTION 1¢ law Professor Marshall | sotully knows) aor relevant toa | motion undee California law. Hedlselastase la, ic roguires disquatificatonif there isa subst eatonaip between the suseesive | representations regardless of ‘whether there fx proof thattbelawyer acquired sonideail | informationdaring the foerepresonlaton, Professor | Maul pearsbe akingthe law up oho goes, ignoring decades ofcontralingesela.This paragraph also lacs foundation CalEvia. Code | § 403(@). 1 propega opinionocd,“property opines on bow the ‘Court shout rule on the Motion See, eg, Summers . Gilbert, 69 Cal, App. ath 1155, 11801995), see also Cal. Bvid. Code § 801. Moreover, Professor Marshall relies upon the lnw ofother jurisdictions in reaching bis ‘onelusions, which foreines weiter speci (but i presumably Ufinols law, as thatis the law Professor Marshall actually knows) nor relevant to motion under Caléfomie law. ‘This paragraph alsolacks ition. Cal. Evid. Code § 403(6}. Moreover, Professor ‘Marshall lacks personal knowledge of the siatements sade in this par Cal. Evid. Code §'702. He further purports to offer opinion on “tho tle of imputation,” an issue ‘which is not raised by Pan! Hastings in ts Opposition. 30, This paragraph is an [PROPOSED] __|Ruuine | 2 Sustained 1D Overnuted ~PLAINTIP'S EVIDENTIARYGBIECTIONSANDREQUEST70STRIRE MARSHALLDECLARATION — 92 j[| eiveumstances make the risk of |MATERIALOBIECTEDTO |GROUNDSFORBIECsolPROPOSED UL iinproper [egél opinion and 5ropeopines on bow the | Overriedcemise thatlawyers within a firma speak | Court shoutd rule on the Motion.freely about chele eases withone another, See, e.g., Stunmers v. Guibert,69. |and itis uareasonable fo assume thata Cal. App. th 1155, 1180(1699): |particularlawyerwith materially | see iso Cal. Bvid. Code § 891relevant confidential information would Moreover, Professor Misrshallnecessarily keep that quictfromother relies upon the law ofotherlaveyors with whom she works and juriections {a reaching hisrouinely interacts. This principle of conclusions, which foreign law isimputation was ones a blanket rule thet | neither specitied (butis‘was meshenically applied. Asthe size of presumably llinols la, s thatistao Firms hasgrown so exponeotially, — the lavy Professor Marshallhowever,ands: fiers have become so actually knows) nor televantto ageographically diffuse, many cousts in | motion under Californis law. He |‘many jurisdictions have recognized that | lao risstates te lew, Thisthe balancing associated withdeciding paragraph als lacks foundation.disqualification motions should take into Cal, Evid. Code § 403(a)sovount a pragmatic assessmentof Profossor Mershall futherwhether disqualifying an entire global] purports o offec opinionon “thefirm is truly necessaryat appropciate in| tole of imputation,”onissueorder toadress the legitimate interests _| whichis not raised by Paulofa former cient in guarding against use Hastingsin its Oppostion.ofconfidences that a lawyer curently ‘with the firm leamed while working at diferentfin years ago, These cous have recognized thet when disclosure of armor cient confidences |bo amused tat hey are virally one |Sisal heeie aoation te | wwithdeawal or disqualification. Indeed, insuch cases, courts offen have ‘expressed fear tbat a formerclient who aeeks to disqualify opposing counsel is ‘asfing for the stratogis purpese ofadding tg its adversey’s costs or eraoving an able opponent. Cours have waroed” | about allowing disqualification to Used in thi mennet As the California Sepreme Courtbas explained: ‘current clients have a right to retain their chosen counsel, and theywill bear the financial ‘burden when thelt chosen counsel is disqualified—s burden that an opponent ay desire in order to gain tactical | felvantage inthe litgarion.” City and | ounty ofSan Franeitco ¥. Cobra Fotos, 234 Cal, Ath 839, S51 (2006)" Bh. Mantel Decl. $35: “is ‘whether the California Supreme ill applies the princiale of 10 Sustained 31. This paragraph improper !ogal opinion and isspeopety opines ontow ihe | Overuled | 18 ~FAINTIF'SBV DENTIARY OBIICHONS ANDREQUESTTO STRIKEMARSHALL DECLARATION 93 Ha ni a, Be nn er s& Go ni an ie mpttaiion as ao absolute nae that is | Cowet should nae on the Nation,} subject to no exceptions. The California See, ¢2., Summers v. Gilbert, 69Supreme Court at one lime indieated, in| Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999);dicta, that the presumption ofshared’ see aiso Cal. Evid. Code § 801.confidencesis trebuttable. See Flat v. Moreover, Professor MarchalSuperlor Court, 9 Cal, 4h 275, 283 reties upon the lawofotherTeenatordeBh, |Mamet‘the Courtsignaled that it night support 8 conclusions, wikich forotgnlaw ig different approach, suggesting that the neither speclied (but ia presumpzion thatinformation known by presumably linois law, as that isany one lawyer in Brm.is known by all | the law Professor MarshallJnveyers in thalfm can be rebutted in| actually knows) nor relevant fo @some cases, See Peuple ex re. Dep't of | motion under Califomialaw. HeCorporations ». Speeds Oil Charge also misstates the law. ThisSystems, Inc, 20 Cal. th 1135, 1151- _j paragraphelso lacks foundation1152 (1995), The United Satca Cour of Cal Evid, Code § A034),Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit has Profesor Marshall furtherrecognized this chanye in tke eppronch porports tooffer opinion on “theof the California Supreme Court. Seon | role ofimputation,” an issueFe County ofLos Angeles, 223 £3990, which is not cuised by Paul996 (9th Cit. 2000). "This reore Hastings in its Opposition.contextualand practical approach has | been recognized as wel by at feast one | California Appellate Court. See Farrir I». Fireman's Fund ins. Co., 119 Cal. } Apa. 4th 872, 685-n.17 (2004).” 36: “ttismy [32 This paragraph is unopinion thathe difference between improper legal opition andsituations in witich « lawyer working on_ impropedy opines on bO%ythe‘ cument matterhad direct knowledge of Court should rule on the Motion.material formor-cliont confidences, | Sse, 2, Summers ».Gilbers. 69. || versus situationsio which alewyer {Cal. App. 4th 1155,1180 (1999); | | working on g currant matter is impuied | see aiso Cal, Evid, Code § 801| ith knowledge of formerstient Moreover, Professor Marshallinformation, isanimportant relies uponthe law ofother! consideration regarding the propriety of | jurisdictionsin reschiogdisqualification, ‘When courts use thcir conclusions, which foreign taw isoveto daguily counsel they as”) other specie taActingthrough thelr inherent power to presumably Hinalsfav, as thot isfurticrjustice. As the Catiforaia the nw Professor Marstell| Supreme Court has recognized, this actually knows) not relevant to a |process requires care! gansidertion of motion under Califia. He | i the competing equities: “When also misstates the lrw. This| disqualification fs sought because ofan paragraph also lacks foundation,Auomey's successive representation of Cal, Buid. Code § 403(3), fflients with adverse interests, the trial | Professor Marshall furthorut must balance the currentclient's pasports fo offer opinion on “theght to the counsel oFis chosing | fole of imputation” an enueinst the former clients ightto ensure | which is tot raised by Paul 28 iat its confidential information will not, Hastingsinits Opposition.be divulged or used by its former Leauasel.’ CityandCowuyofSan| is | MATERIAL OBJECTED TO |GROUNDS FOR OBIECTTON] [PROPOSED] RULING| 1D Sustined | B Overnled | 94 ROUNDS FOR OBJECTION| L,2 |WFrancisco ». Cabra Solutio Cal, th 839, $46 (2006). This balancing of competing vahues is informedby the actuilrik that client confidences that 4 Ilone lawyer possesses will, infact, ecome knovmto che lawyers ho are tunlly working on the carent matter.” inc, 38 33. MarshallDect, 437: “In this | 33, This paragraphis ancase, Mr. Snyder works Inthe New York ] improper legal pinionand 7H} office, while the Gibson Dunn lawyers improperly opines on how the‘working onthis matter are all in the Court shoud rule on the Motion.5h Gimm's Los Angetesoffice. Within one | See, ag. Summers v, Gilbert, 659 fl dayoFlearning that Mr. Snyder had | Cal, App.4th 1185, 1180 (1999),represented Mr. Saperstein on an se¢ also Cal, Evid, Code § 803.vurelated matter and that Mr. Motcover, Professor MarsalSapetsiein's current counsel was raising. relies upon the law ofother11 ] concerns about a conflict this created, ~ jurisdictions in reachingGibsonDunn erected an ethical screen conclusions, whieh foreign law is‘botween Mr, Snyder and all lawyers | neitherspecified (but isworking on the Paul Hastings matter. presumably Ulinois ‘aw, a5 that is‘This soreen was in keeping with the best thelaw Professor Marsca'3 I practices forsuch ethien!screens, | actually knows) nor relevant wo ainclidiag directions to all Gibson Duna | motion undet California faw. He.lawyers, paralegals and secretaries that | also misstates the law andMz. Snyder do no work on the Paul { wrongly applies erroneous law.Hastings matter, that no discussions of This paragraphalso lacksthese mutes lake place inthe presence foundation. (Cl, Evid. Codeof Mz, Snyde; that noinformation about | § 403(a). Moccover, Professorthe matterbe disclosed to Mr. Soyder, — Marshall tacks personal 17 Wh and that Mr. Snyder have no access to knowledge of thestatementsany documentsfiles of materials relating | inede in this paragraph. Cal.18 [ito the PauHastings mater.” | Evid. Code § 702. He furthex | putports to offer opinion on “the 7 [ ole ofimputation,” ax issze: which is not raised by Paul i. Hastings in its Opposition, 34. ball Deal. 938, 34, _This paragraph is an- | FegachERLTAS eof | improper legal opinion and © Overrated 1D Sustained soreen is enough 1o avoid imputation ofa | improperly opines on how the | 71 Overruted123 { plain and strong contr, itis my opinion Court should rule on the Motion. {5 |) thatthepresence of the sexeenimpacts | See, eg., Surmmers 2, Gilbert, 69the balance of equities in a case where | Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999);24 \)| aay conflict(even ifthe court were 10 see also Cal. Bvid. Cods § 801.45 || fonclade thal one existsy is very Moreover, Professor Marshall3 emuated and remote to begin with. relies upon thelew of other ]| ase presents en instance where the | juisdieHons in reaching hs i26 Il lationship betweenthe matters is quite | Ponctasions, which foreign i 4Il emote andere tho walver of priviege | netherspel! tousx [eee relevant confidences associated | presumably Hlinoslaw s that is2g ff th theformer representation renders ths law Professor Marshall Lie pumpose ofthesenilesweakened,jf |acinally knows)nortelevinttoa| 20 | | 95 i | layerof arificiaity by imputing Mr. Snyder's knowledge fa all lawyers at Gibson Dunn, despite the safeguards in | pisss, would stich the forner-client- conflict rule well heyond its natural contours.” “Mr. ibility hat MSaperstein alludes io the pi ‘he might wish tocall Mr. Snyder as witness. Motionto Disgualify at 11, Deol Nothing abour the fact that Snyderis now et Gibson Dunn would affect Mr. Saperstein’right to dothat. California Rute of Professional Condvet5.210 only bars ao individual lawyer from ‘ecting as an advocate before a jury which wall hear testimony from the member.” As the Official Comment explains, this Rule dots not apply “to circumstances in which a lawyer in an advocate’sfirm ‘will be a witness.”” DATED:October 74, 2009 i é i 45 [not cnrelymoos Addingyet eiomier| ~ BEAERTIEF'S EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS AND REQUEST TO STRIKE MASSIALL DECLARATION | GROUNDS FOR ONJECTION| “TPROPOSED] ROL totion undet California law. He also missatesthe law and ‘wrongly azplies erconeous law. Thisparograph also lacks foundation, Cal. Bvid. Code §.403(), Moreover, Professor Marshall lacks personal ‘know/etige ofthe statements made in this paragraph, Cal. | Evid, Cote 702 He further |purports to offer opinion on "hesee ofimpuaognew |‘which is not raised by Paut | Hastingsin ts Opposition, | 35. This paragraph is an D Sustainedimproper legaiopinion aud | improperly opines on how the C) OverruledCour shoulirale on the Motion. | | See. eg, Summers y. Guber, 69 |j Cal Abs. 4th 1155, 1180 109),ser also Cal. Evid, Code § 801Professor Marchal leo nsiaiesthe law and mischaraterzns Califia aw, which eowelywould zesognize a confit otinterest wore formerIvy both adverse fa the cunent | Inout and a perepient witnessonthe matien indlpates Tass | paragraph alo cacks foundetion.CatEvid Cote $0300. | HENNIGAN, BENNETT & DORMAN LLP Br, bub cea Baul B. Derby Attomeys for Plaintift DAVID L SAPERSTEIN 96 C e a a e s PROOF OFSERVICE 1 deetate as follows: Lam a resident ofthe State of California and overthe age ofeighteen year, and notapartyto the within action; my bsiness addressis 865 South Figueroa Stet, Suite 2900,Las Angeles, California 90017, On October 29, 2008,1 seed the foregoing document described as PLAINTI¥FDAVID I. SAPERSTEIN'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND REQUESTTO STRIKEDECLARATION OF LAWRENCE C. MARSHALLFILEDIN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION‘OF DEFENDANT PAUL. HASTINGS, JANOFSKY& WALKER LLP TO PLAINTIFF'SMOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP on the Interested partiein this actionfollows: (1 —_by renamingvia facsimile the documcatslisted above to the fax mumaber set forth flow onthis date. This ransmission was repored as complete without errorby @ttenamission report issued by the facsimile machine upon which the said transmission was made inamediatelyfollowing the wansmalssion. A true andcorrect ‘copy ofthe suid ansmistion is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, ©] —_byplacingthe documsent ised ebove ina sealed envelope with postage therconfully prepaid, in the United States mail at Las Angeles, California addressed assetforth below a by electronic transmission. I caused the document(s)listed above to be transmitted by electronic mail to the individuals or the servicelist asset forth below. a by placingthe document listed aboveina sealed envelope and affixing a pre-paidsir bill, and eavsingthe envelopeto be delivered to & agent for Delivery. c by placing the doctement sted above in a soaled envelope and causing the envelopeto be delivered by messenuer to the individuals onthe service ist assetforth below, Kevin $. Rosen, sq Jason C. Lo, Hag. ‘Will Edmooson, Es son, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Granul Avestve Los Angeles, California 90071 do@alnontmaconFeary ‘wEdimonsou(@gibsorsiunn con (Delivered by e-mail and U.S. snl) 68062 97 || Ronald M. Ostet, Esq, i Eve M. Coddon, fq. } Pout, Hastings, Ianofiky & Welker LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor ‘Los Angeles, California 90071 | sonuldoster@tpaulhastings |eveoddon@raulsestines Delivered by e-mail and U.S, mail | {am readily familar withthe finw’s practice of collection and processing comespondence for |naling, Undertat practice it would be deposited vith the U.S.Postel Sevice on thet some dngith postage thereon fully propa in the erdicary course of business. Iam swethat on moto ofthe pary served, service is resumed invalid i postal canellatian date r pstlrcter date o enethan one day afer dat of deposit for mailing in aida, Bxecuted on October 29, 2009,at Los Angeles, California, 0 I declare under penalty of perjury underthe faws of the State of California thasthe aboveistrue end correct. O tdectare uncer penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerice that theabove is tue and correct. ~Mtr FriAllison Spicer) e e r rom 98 Exhibit 30 99 1 GIBSON,DUNN& CRUTCHER LLP KEVIN, eae SBN ae ies i 2 SUSAN M. (CELLA, SBN 13846! WOILLIAGA TEEDMONSON, SON 243405 FILED |SOILLIAGA H , 2434 5 eA LET 333 South Grand Aven7lor VeSSUPROK couRr ‘Los eles, Caltfornia, J[lephtses" 13) 590:7000 Hv 0 2209 Faesimile; (213) 229-7520 . ORAL RONALD M. OSTER, SBN 57954 EVE M. CODDON, SBN125389 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 ‘Telephone: (13) 683-6000 9] Pacsimite: (213) 627-0705 3 4 3 6] PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 7 a 10] Attomeys for Defendant Paul, flastings, lanofsky & Welker LLP | ‘SUPERIORCOURT OFTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRALDISTRICT DAVID 1. SAPERSTEIN, CASE NO.: BC 393920 Phair, [he Honorable Mary Ann Morphy} ¥, RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT PAUL,0 AASTINGS,JANOFSKY & WALKER LL? TOPAUL, LIASTINGS, JANOFSKY & PLALNTLFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE18 |] WALKER LLP,aCalifornia Limited DECLARATION OF LAWRENCEC.Liability Partership; and Does i through 10, MARSHALL FILED IN SUPPORT O¥ THEv ‘OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT PAUL,Defendants. HASTINGS, JANOPSKY & WALKER LLP TO20 PLAINTIRI’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF GIBSON,DUNN &a CRUTCHER, LLP; SUPPORTING ‘SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF2 LAWRENCEC. MARSHALL B [RESPONSES TO PLAIN P'S SPECIFIC ‘OBJECTIONS AND APPENDIX OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITHES FILED UNDERSEPARATE COVER} November 5, 2009 330am Dept. 25 September 22, 2010SB I E n Sly 7, 2609 100 w e t a e O N E n e ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS: OVERVIEW...... PROFESSOR MARSHALL’ CALIFORNIA LAW. PROFESSOR MARSHALL IS MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO OFFER HIS EXPERTOPINIONS«0 a CONCLUSION i ‘OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT PAUL, RASTINGS, JANOFSKY &WALKER LLP TO FLAINTUS MOTION TOPDISQUALIFICATION 104 Gastro v. Los Angeles County Board ofSupervisars, Ferra x Workven's Compansctons Appeals Board, ‘TABLE OFAUTHORITIES Co 232 Cal, App. 3d 1432 (1991)... Ma 38 Cal. App. 34 1201 Georgine v. Arachem Products, Inc, In re Lee G, 157 RRD. 246 (2D. Pa, 1994) 1 Cal. App, 4" 17.999)... Miller». Las Angeles County Flood Control Dis, 8 Cal 34 689 (1973)... Master ». Southern California Physicians ins, Exchange, 63 Cal. App. 4* 1022 (199 Sheldon Appet Co, v. Albert & Other, 47 Cal.3d 863 (1989). Stanley v. Ric Summers. 4.1, Gilbert Co,, id, 35 Cal. App. 4! 070 (1995) 69 Cal. App, 4" 1155 (1999). Terrebonne, Lid ofCalifornia v. Murray, Caf, Bvid. Code § 805... a e 1 F. Supp.2d 1050 (B.D.Cal, 1998). it ‘OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FAUI, HASTINGS JANOFSEY & WALKER LLP TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FORDISQUALIFICATION Pagel) 2,36 102 1 OVERVIEW j [| _Vaable to respond substantively to Professor Marshal's expert testimony,and having failed to 2 3 find an expert whodisagrees with such testimony, Plaintiff resorts to attempting to strike Professor *V arstall’s Dectarstion. Plaintiff complains he does nothing more than express his opinions shout how : the case should be decided. Plaintiff is wrong. Professor Marshall does not purport to tell the Court how it should rule;rather,ha offershis expert Jopialon based on applicable law, inclutingts undeslying policies and history, and relevantfact, | tsgarding issues presented in the pending disqualification motion. Professor Marshall's opinions certainly are consistent with Section 805 ofthe Califomia Evidence Code,which expressly provides that {testimonyinthe foem of expert opinion thtioerwise admissibleis aa objectionuble because it Jembraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of faci.” Not only do ccurts permit expert testimony’ | rogerding issues of alleged conflicts,but they demandit. Indeed, even the cases relied upon by Pleint | reinforce this poi, ‘Sinnilarly unavailing is Plaintiff'sattack on Professor Marsbait’s credentials and his knowledge and} experience regarding the California Rules of Profissional Conduct. Initially, Plaintiff misapprehonds the istinetion between a standard of cate expert, whois focused on the manner of practice based on standards ofthe local community, and an ettles expert, wbo Is focused on the applicabilityofeslablished, defined, and written ethics rules as apptied tothefact of a particular caso. Equally important,as Professor Moshall's Declaration (42-5) makes cleat, and as his Supplementat Dectaratlon (W] 2-7) explainsfurtherin response to PlaintifPs ealsguided arguments, Professor Marshall has taught Califoraia ethics and conflict rules and relaied decisional law at Stanford Lew Sebo! in California for more than $ years. Duiog thattime, he also has run a number af ctinies where Stanford students who spent summners at lw fitms and other entities function as lawyersin qelifornia, thereby cequiting him to be responsible foridentifying and resolving precisely the same oft iasue presented he, whichhe bas dane in a least 700tastes pursaneo the Califia Res | of Protessionat Contact. ane8 i SSGLILP" | GSRNSOFCREMGANT PAUL, HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER CLD 10 ALARTTPS WOWTON TO STRRETHE |DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE C: MARSHALL. 103 10 u n 14 is 16 18 ety 2 2 B ry 25 26 a 2B Even dusing his previouswork as a Professorat Northwestern University School of Law and a Reporter to the Illinois Supreme Court Committes on Professional Responsibility,» significantportion of| bis timo and effort was spent analyzing the Cali fornia Rules of Professional Conduct ws a contrast tothe Model Rules of Professions! Conductofthe Ameriean Bor Associaton and the Ulinis ethics rules. And Professor Marshall previously has served as aa expert in California cases involving California lawyers, Fiaallyit is woll established under Cxlifornie law thet even professors at law schools oxtside of Colifornia are capable of providing expert opinions regarding California ethics rules and their applicability to the faots ofa particular case. See Castro v. Las Angeles Countp Board ofSupervisors,232 Cal. App. 3d 1432 (1991) (elying on expert opinion of Prof.Stephen Gilers ofNYUSchl ofLaw); in 'r¢ Lee G, 1 Cal. App. 4” 17 (1991) (same), And, ofcourse,here Professor Marsbell teaches California ethice rules ot a California university to California law students and rapsa California clinifor California low students practicingin Califonnia, who must comply with Californie etbics rues related to their ‘summer employment. Paints only asgamont in reality is that he docs not like the fact that an esteemned Professor at Staufocd Law Schooldisagrees with the purported substantive foundation of Plaintiffs tactical effort to disqualify Paul Hastingschosen counsel, However, that agumentis not a legitimate basis to ignore California taw regarding how alleged coni of interest are to be determined. Therefore, the only compelling espectof Plaintiff's motionto strike, in view ofPlaintiff's inability to respond substantively to Professor Marshall's opinions other than by personal attacks on him, is tha it confirms Plaintiffs failure to obinin expert evidence that supports disqualification UL. PROFESSOR MARSHALL'S EXPERT DECLARATIONIS ADMISSIBLE.‘UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW Contry to Plaintiffs suggestion, Professor Marshal's tetimonyi not focused on a pure question of law ot on anymatter outside ofhis competence 8s an expect witness. Tastead, Professor Marshall, after explaininghis understanding ofapplicable lav, including ts uederlyicg policies and story, spplies that aw tothe facts ofths ease in order to renderhis opinion. Thatis what oxperts de, They routinelyoffer opinions regardinganced questions oflw and fact Theres nothing novelor ibpoper stows 2 "RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT PAUL, HASTINGS ANOFKY& WALKER OLP TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ETRIRETH [DACLARATION OF LAWRENCE C, MARSHALL 104 Assetforth in his Declaration, Professor Marshall has bean asked to testify concerning “whether [Gibson, Donn & Crutcher] has an ethical or ega! obligation to withdraw fromm representing Paul, Fiamtings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP," (See Decloration of Lawrence C.Marshall (Marshall Dect”), 45) ‘More specifically, Professor Marshall'stestimony focuses on whether, under applicable ethical aad legal ules, Orin Snyder's former representation of PlainitEin 2004 nnd casty 2008 while Mr. Snyder vas atthe law firm of Manat, Phetps d Phillips regarding a matter not “substantially elated” to this ease creates a eo of interest that precludes Gibson Dunn & Crutcher from representing Pau He ing la this ease in }2009. (See Mashalt Decl, 411-24.) Califoraia courts have deemed expert testimony reganding an alleged conflict of interest adenissible in cases involving attorney disqualification issues. For example, in Castro v. Las Angeles (County Board ofSupervisors, 232Cal. App.34 1432 (1991), a case involving an alleged conflict of interest arising from « public agency's representation of matipleclients, counsel for the defense submitted an expert ethics opinion authored by Profestor Stephen Gillers of New York University School of Low. The court not only agreed that the opi jon was admissible, butit also heavily relied upon Professor Gilles’ opiaiva in concluding that there Was nodisqualifying conflict ofinterest. 1 at 1444, In bare Lee G, 1 Cal, App." 17, 28-29 (1991),another California court relied heavily pon Professor Gilles’expert opinion to evaluate whether a conflict of interest existed requiring the recnsal of counsel (noting that in Castro, “the Court of Appeal quoted at length fiom an ethics opinion letter submited as a tial court exhibit onthe Issue of conflictofinterest rules” and reftcing tothe opinion asa puidelineIn consideringthe effect ofan alleged averse representation). Jn Terrebonne, Ll ofCalifornia v. Murray, 1 F. Supp24 1050, 1058 (E.D, Cal, 1998), a case favolving an sttorey’s disqualification duc to a conflict ofinterea, the court held that plaintiff's expert teslimony was “relovant and helpfulin determining the conflict issues involved. The Terrebonne court specifically considered and relied upon tho testimony ofplaintiff's professional responsibility expert on the insu of whether defondants but vbtsinedcontdental infotion requiring disqualification. 4, In hs, te couritcized the opposing payfr fling to courtis edeace wth their ov experts. Jd, 4 ‘Likewise, California courts often have permitted expert testimony reyanting alleged conflicts of | fnlerest in otter contexts, See e.g., Stanley v. Rickmond, 35 Cal. App.4° 1070, 1088 (1995) (considering | :‘ESFORSE OF DEFENDANTATSTNGTORTRWARETORARPPUNGTENOTA]DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE C, MARSHALL 105 Pn 2s 26 a 28 expert testimony cegarding whether an attomey had a conflict of interest ina breach offiduciary duty case); Mosier », Souhern California Phyatclans is, Exchange, 63 Cal. App. 41022,1038 (1998) {allowing expert testimony that “the situation presented a conflictof interast whieh would be well known, in the insuranceindustry” end that “under the fasts presented [the insurance company's condust] violated the duty owed by the cartier under [applicable law],"); Georgine ». Amohere Products, fa., 157 F 246, 327 (E.D.Pa. 1994)(peeingexpen testimony regardingthe existenceofa cont of interest tien an etiorney andhs client, explaining hat this isa mixed question of law and fact on which the court may be guide by expert testimony), Lacking any basis to respond to these well-established principles, Paints creates astrey-man by Dosing that pure questions oflw generally ar oot a proper subject ofexpe option, See Oj a1. | ‘But the cuses cited by Pisinare far a felfiom the issue subjudice because they nowhere discuss the | issuos of disqualification or confit ofinteres. Forexample, Sheldon Appel Co. v Albert de Oller, 47 (Cal, 3d 63 (1989),volved a malicious prosceution eaten which he court merely held tha expert testimony isnot pemnitted on the question of probable oatse. See fat #84. Similarly unavailing is Plaintif’s reliance on Rerrsiray. Workmen's Compensations Appeals Board, 38 Cal. App. 3d 120 (1974) a workers compensation cate in wich the court held that a medical expert’testimony regarding an insure’ legallability did not constitute “subsiantal evidence” because his opinions were “uot mesical opinions.” Id. 9125-26. And in Summers v.A.. Gilbert Co, 69 Cal.App. 41155 (199), a wrong eath case arising ftom an overturned shipmentaf com, the court excluded expert testimony because it amounted to “nothing more than an expression of[the expert'sbelleon how a case sbowld be deve.” Ha. 8 118. Ironically,the oni relevant aspect ofthe eases cited by Plaintiff is that they confit the propriety of expert testimony kito as Professor Mashall's Declaration imatars suc as this one. Se, eg Milter», Los Angeles County Flood Cantrol Dist, ® Cal, 34 689, 72 (1973)(fs settled that an expert, bicoa a notnamisbeerely becausecoisas with an nats iofa”)Gea ations omitted; Summers vA. Gtert Ca, 69 Cal. App.41155, 1178 (1989) Testimony inthe ffm of expert opinion hai otherwise ansible is notobjoctionble bese it ombraces the imate issue tobe decided bythe trier offact.”(quoting Cal. Evid, Code § 808.) 14 | RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT PAIL, HASTINGS, ANOPSI a WALKER LLP TO SLAINTIENS MOTION TO STRIKE THE DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE C. MARSHALL 106 {n short, Califoraia courts routinely have edmitted expert testimony regarding whether,under applicable ethical and legel standards, the circumstances of a given case create a condlictof interest requiring disqualification. Piainttf identifies no legitimate reason why such testimony should be Jexotuded in this case. Ml, PROFESSOR MARSHALL IS MORK THAN QUALIFIED TO OFFERHIS EXPERT OPINIONS ‘Noris there any rect to Plaitif's conclusory assertion that Professor Marshallis not qualified ta ender his expert opinions, (See Obj. at L.) As Plaistff acknowledges, to quslify as en expert, Professor Marshall need oniy demonstrate that be has “apectal knowledge, skili, experience, taining oreducation, ‘onthe subject to whihis testimony relates.” (Jd!) Here,as nated above, Professor Marshall's testimony relates to whether Gibson Dunn has a disqualifying conflictof interest in light of applicable ethical and legalstandards ‘Asset foth iu Professor Marshall's Declarationand attached biography,as well as bis Supplemental Declaration, he has years of extensive experience relating ta the issues here and applicable California law. (Supplemental Declaration of Laurence C. Marshall (Supp. Matshslt Deel"), $2.7; Marshall Decl, 1] 2S.) Professor Marshall bas tanght California ethies and confit rales and related decisions tw at Stanford Law Schoo!in California for more thaa five years. (Supp. Marshall Decl, 3} At Stantbed, he also overseesa numberof clinics where Stanford students who spent susmexsat aw firms and other entities function as invyerin Califomis. This requires Professor Marshall ta be respoasibleforidentifying and eesolving precisely the sume conflictisue preseoted here, which he has done in atleast 700instances pursuent to the California Rules of Professional Conduct. (id, $446; Marshall Decl, 14.) [Even during his previous work as «Professor #t Northwestern University School of Law and a Reporter to the tlinois Supreme Court Committe on Profersional Responsibility, a significant potion of js ime and effort was spent analyzing the Califoria Rules of Professional Conduct2s contast tothe kon Rules of Professional Conduct of hs Arpeican Bar Associaton andthe Iino ethis ules. (Gopp. Masstll Dec, 93; Marshali Deel, 7}2-4) And Professor Marshall previouslya served as an epertin California esses involving Caltfoniavers. (Supp. Micsafl Decl, 17; Marshall Decl, $5.) 5 "RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT PAUL, TASTINGS JANO®SEY & WALKER L(R 10 FLAINTNPS MOON TO STRIKE THEDECLARATION OF LAWRENCE G MARSHALL 107 Mose general, Professor Marshall graduated suntcits laude from Northwestern School of Law and later served asa law clotforJustice John Paul Stevens of the United States Supreme Court, Professor Marshall has worked in private practice with the firm of Mayer, Brown de Plat, wh a8 offices in California, Since 1987, Professor Marshall has taught courses in Professional Responsibility ond the Law of Lawyering at Nocthwestcmand Stanford law schools. (Marshalt Decl, ]2.) Indeed, a3 ac notes ia is Declaration, Professor Marshal has “studied, taught, done research, and practiced in the field ofprofessionat responsibility for more than 20 years.” (ta) ‘The simple fact is that Professor Marshall's stellar qualifications and yoars oF expatience, as detailed in Declaration and biography and Supplemental Declaration,more than quallfy him to testify oc the legal and ethical issues addressed in his Declaration. Plaintiff offers nothing to suggest otherwise. IV. CONCLUSION Foral of these reasons, the Court should deny Plsintif's motion ta stike Professor Marshall's testimony. (DATED: November 2, 2009 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP end PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOPSKY é& WALKERLLP ivcsen4008 ve Ylaets fin §. Rosen } |1} That Professor Matshall is not a member of the California Bar and that Stanford Law Schoo!hes other | {§ ethics experts has nothing to do with Professor Marshall's qualificationto serve as an expert here.See}7, Castro v. Las Angeles Covoiy Board ofSipervtors, 232.Cal. App.3d 1432(1991) (lyfog on expert {opinion of Prot Stephen Gillers ofNYU School of Law}; fn re Lee G, | Cal. App. 4° £7 (1994) § (Game). Ofcovise, Plaintiff has not cited any case imposing a perse rule that an ets expect most ba1 member of the Califomia Bar inorder to testify as such. 6 TRESPONSE OF DEFENDANT PAUL, UASTINGS,JANGISKY & WALKER LIP TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STARE THE DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE C MARSHALL. 108 H tows i, DUNN & CRUTCHERLLP KEVIN S. ROSEN, SBN 133304 SUSAN M. MARCELLA,SEN 138468 JASON C. LO, SBN 219630 WILLIAM If EDMONSON,SBN 243445 323South Grandvenus ‘Los Angeles, California $007 ‘Telephone: (213) 229-7000 et (213) 229-7520 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKRI RONALD M. OSTER, SBN57954 7 EVE M. CODDON,SBN 125389 515 South Flowar Steet, 25th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-6000, acsimale: (213) 627.0705 Attorneys for Defendant Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP SUPERIORCOURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FORTHE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT DAVID 4. SAPRRSTEIN, CASENO.: BC 393920 Plaintiff, [he Honorable Mary Ann Murphy] ¥ SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OFLAWRENCE C. MARSHALLIN SUPPORTPAUL, ILASTINGS, JANOFSKY& OF DEFENDANT PAUL, HASTINGS,WALKER LLP, a California Limited JANOFSKY & WALKER LL?'SOPPOSITIONability Partnetship, and Does { through 10, | TOPLAINTIFF'S MOTION FORDISQUALIFICATION OF GIBSON DUNN &Defendants, CRUTCHERILL?AS COUNSEL TODEFENDANT PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY& WALKER LLP Dase: November 5, 2009Time: 80am, Place: Dept 25 ‘Trial Date: September 22, 2010 ‘Complaint Filed: July 7,200 / \ENTAL DECLARATION OF LAWhiner ©MARSHALL IN SUEPORTOF WEFENDANT PAUL HASTINGS“JANOFSKY & WALKER LLPOFYOSTION TO PLALTTIRF'S MOTION FOR IiSQUalsITearog 109 c 1, Lawrence C. Marshall, declace: 2 1. Lamover theage of18, Trealled asa witoags, I could and would provide oninpetent 3] testimony oa the matters setforth in thia declaration. 4 2. Qverthe past 22 years, } Ive taught consictotlyin the Feld of Professional 5 Responsibitty, fics st Nonhwestem University Sshoolof Law,and then forthe past ive-phus years as 6 Stanford Lave School. During thoce years,I estimato that! have taught Professional Responsibility (sometimes under the course names “LegalEthic”or “Lawyers? Ethics”) to over 1,500 law students, 8 3, Dating my more than five years at Stanford,the foous of my teaching in Professional 9 Responaibiity has been simost exclusively the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Drcing my 10 yeacs teaching at No:thwestem, | focused on ie Amezionn Bar Association Moda} Rules of Professional 11] Consfuctand the rues of a suber of major stated, In 20 doing, Califorsia was always one of che mein, (2 jurisdictions I studied ard iaught because ofthe contrast epween the ABAcules and the California 13 [faules, and because grest many ofiy students intended to practice in California, 4 4, Because so many ofthe students at both Stanford and Northwesternwill find thenttelveaia 45 private prectioe in large law firas or other ons, and becuse the single mostrecurringissue they will 16 ficeinvolves eonficts-of-intecest, Thave speata greatdeal of time at Stanford (and before tha, at 7 Northwestern) focusing on thet subject in my lesshing and rescasch. Yo pertcu Because these 18 eurdents will often shift jobs among various lawfms and entities, the subject of Yormerclient 19 conlticts” is one of ths primary topics upon which { focus ia my teaching and aboutwhich I camantly 20 stady and research, 2 5. nthe course of my ditecting the Stunford Law School Legal Clinic, Ihave beonconstantly 72 |}charged with the need to help the faculty and students in te clinic analyzeand resolve ethical iesuesthat 25 |farive under coe California Rites ofProfessions] Cowinct—fiequently around the ubject of “former 24 stint conflicts” This is because each year approximately 140 new second-year orthird-year law 25 students ecroll in the cfiuial program—in which they act as attomeys and are subject to the California 26¥] Rutes of Professional Conduct, Every one ofthese stants has spent at least one surcmer working ut clients. “Thus, each ofthese 140 students arrives annually with « portfolio offormer clout,” and the 2 (Sie Spec EpemaTAL DECLARATION OF LAWRENCEMARSUALL IY SUPPORT OF DESENDANT PAUL WASTINGSAROPSKY & WALKERELS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION 110 ino Requoitly has needed lo dealwith questions involving conflet-afintecest between current fie tious sud thew students’ Formar coats. Porexample, sovere} ofour oliies (auch as Phe Suypreme Cowrt Litigation Clini and he Environmental Law Clinis) have been aed to work on eas oe have Sound themelves woking on casea tht ae advarta to formar clients that students representedi hele aw firme, 6. Inmaycourse on “LawyersBthles”Cavefe the students overthe past several yours et ‘Stanford through ness Janus undo the Californie Rules ofProfesslonnl Conduct. The cosmee places the Htudonte In the rola of th fhe Commies af the Legal Clink end involve ethiad Ieszes-— cen an aray ofacto tuding meny cont wfioterest fase—that arse inthe practice of ine, Mi ol bis proceasbes been to tring ry experts no the disoesioneproviding the sadewiththe backgronnd,isighla nnd contextsat comefom my deoades ofslyesac, teaching and vosk in ts ren, “1. Daring tho pest two decades, Ihave isobeen asked by dozens of lw firmn to help them navignto confitinteres fsthaters ather patie, nsinding many involving formen-clont ets. in ation, on several occasion, Lhave provided deferens cr affdavtson coi. otceasuntand oer prfisionsl-ssponsibity fase ‘To tebeat of my vowladpe, no cout has ever destnes to recogaasaaan expat on hese FURTHERDECLARANTSAYBTHNOT. i 1 declare uncer penalty ofperjury write is laws ofthe State ofCalifornia thal the forogoing is rue and eorrect. Execute this 2day ofNovember 2009 in New Vark, New York, aersen_.00¢ a SUPEDEAIRTERT DETARATION OFL WRIEsaanPISUPRORET OoDERTICUANTWAI.STINGR—SANDUBY APALERLs OPPOSTTIONfOFLADNIPS MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION. 111 Exhibit 31 112 10 i 12" He nm an , Be na er s & OR IG IN AL ® ® 7 HENNIGAN, BENNETT & DORMANLLP1. Michael Hennigan (SBN 59491) ‘Allison Chock (SBN 306013) ILE DB Paul B, Darby (SBN 211352) LOS ANGLE SUPERIOR courennigan@hbdlawyers.com ‘mechaska@hbdiayers.com REC’ eC at 2glecbyp@hbdlawyer.com "DB65South Figueras Steet, Suite 2900 ars guyLos Angeles, California 96017 3 higherTelephone: {213} 694-1200 NOV 24 2000. ev cect aSGHAERS cerury} Fax: (213) 694-1234 FILING winpow MITHOPF LAWFRM Richard Warren Mithof (admitted pro hae vice) Shorie Potts Beckman (admitted pro hac vice) Joseph R. Alexander,J. (admitted pro hac vice)(One Alten Center 500 Dallas Street Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) $541 122 Fax: (713) 739-8085 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID L SAPERSTEIN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DAVID 1. SAPERSTEIN, Case No, BC 393920 (Ron, Mary Ann Murphy} ppRaresinionven. ON PLAINTIFFDAVID J. SAPERSTEIN'S EVIDENTIARY‘OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OFLAWRENCE C. MARSHALLFILED INSUPPORTOF OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT PAUL, HASTINGS,JANOFSKY & WALICER LL? TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FO} DISQUALIFICATION OF GIBSON DUNN& CRUTCHER LLP ActionFiled: July 7, 2008 Teial Date: September 22, 2010 Plaintiff, va. PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKERLEP, 9 California limited Viability partnership; and Does | through 10, Defendants, 113 iq i OBJECTIONS 10 MARSHALL. DECLARATION | Objection Number L His my opinion, which I conveyed to Gibson Duna, thatthefirm is nol required as a matter ofth {governing ethical rules and law to withdraw from this matter.” (Marskatt declaration, puge 3, lines 13) Grounds for Objection 1: Izaproper legal opinion (Evid. Code § BOL: Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999)); opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 493(6)); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on California disqualification law (Bvid. Code § 720) ‘Court's Ruting on Objection 1: Sustained: Overruled: Objection Number 2 1 was then asked by Gibson Dunn to review the Mi n for Disqualification that Mr. Superstein has filed and to determi | nether anything in that Motion orthe accompanying declarations and documents affects my opinion that Gibson Dumn is not required as a matterofthe governing ethical rules and law to withdraw from this matter, ARer reviewing those materials,it remains my opinton hat Gibson Dunn is not required as a matter of the governing ethical rules and law to withdraw from this matler.” (Marshaldeclaration, page 3, lines 4.9.) Grounds for Objection 2: Improperlegal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. ‘App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); lacks foundation(Evid. Code § 403(a)); expert witness nat qualified to render opinions on Califor isqualification law (Evid. Code § 720). Rulingon Objection 2: 4 “~PROPGSED}ORDeK OHEVIDENTIARYOWECTIONS TOMARSHALLDECLARATION — | | lew nig an Be nn er & || opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. App.4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opi Objection Number 3 "The alleged conflict of ioteestit this case is nota claim that Gibson Dunn is simultaneously representing clients with adverse interests. When Gibson Dunn undertook the representationoff | Paul Hastingsin this in thiscivil professionsl-liability action, no lawyerat Gibson Dunn was | representing Mc. Saperstein on any matter." (Massball declaration, page J, tines 19-22.) Grounds for Objection 3; Lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(2)); improper tegal based ‘on impropermatter (Evid, Code § 803}; opinion tased on opinion or statement af another (Evid Code § 804); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)}; expert witness not qualified to renderopinion on California disqualification law (Evid. Code § 720). [Court’s Rating on Objectionif Sustaine Overulee Objection Number 4 i Teather, the conflict of interest that Mr. Saperstein allegesis based on the fact that Orin Snyder, a lawyer who is now a partner at Gibson Dunn, once represented Mr, Baperstein ina criminal matter that concluded well before Gilsson Dunn undertook the representation of Paul Hastings inthe [currentlitigation, ‘The actual work that Mr. Sayder did onthat matter took place when Mr. Snyder ‘was a partnerat the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, L.L.P.[hereinafter Manatt Phelps] prio to Mr. Snyder's moving to Gibson Dunn in 2005, This is a claim, thea, about a “former-elient conflict,” £e., an allegation relating to Gibson Dunn's dutiesto a former elient ofeny attorney who is now at Gibson Dunn.” (Marshall declaration, page 3, ine 23—page 4, line 2) Grounds for Objection 4: Lack ofpersonal knowle c (Evid, Code § 702); improper legat opinion (Bvid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opinion based ‘on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); opinion based on opinionorstatementofanother (Evid. Code § £04); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(s)); expert witness not qualified to renderopinion Jost California disqualification law (Bvid. Code § 720). : 2 DanaSoIECTION [SROPGSED]ORDERON STOWARSITALDectARATION~~} 115 Hos tin san , Ge ns er 6 Us ma n ie “in assessing n claimof an atleged former-cientconflict of interest, some basic principles emezge in California law and the widely ucvepted [aw of other jurisdlctions, upon which my opinions are based. The law does not prectude a lavryer or law fitm from undertaking representation against a party simply because thal adverse party was once a cliont ofthe lawyer or aw firm. Unlike a current client, 8 formerclient is not generally entitled tohis previous lawyer's loyalty (subjectto a very limited exception involving instances in which the lawyeris atacking the precise outcome the lawyer secured on behalf ofthe former client—asituation with no relevance in the matter now under consideration). Hence, although a lawyer may not {in the absence ofclient consent) undertake any Tepresentation adverse to the interests oF a current client, no such per se rule applies toa lawyer ‘undertaking representation adverse to the interests of aformer client.” (Marshall declaration, page 4, tines 3-12.) Grounds for Objection 5; Improper Segal opinion (Svid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. ‘App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opinion based on improper matter (Evid, Code § 803); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403{a)); expen witness not qualified to render opinion on California disqualification law (Evid.Code § 720). CourtsRuling on Objection 5: |siccinegaf Overrated: Objection Number6 "indeed, the law recognizes that barring 2 lawyer from undertaking representation on the sole ground that the aiversary isa formerclient would have en extremely deleterious impact on the profession and on a subsequentclient’s choice of counsel. This is especially true given the trend | joyrard the nationalization and consolidation of law firmsand toward inewesed lawyer mobility egege taw firms represent thousands, andin some cases, lens of thousands, of clients each year. If LARATION 116 ‘cach Firm was forever barred from undertaking representations adverse 1p all those former clients [con all former clients of uny other tawyers who have joined the fire), the number of aw firms able to take on particulor matters would be severely limited.” (Marshall declaration, page 4, Hines 13-20.) Grounds tor Odjestion 6: Improper legal opivion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal, App. 4th 1153,1180 (1999)); opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on California isquatification law (Evid. Code § 720); inetevant (Evid, Code §§ 210, 350-351) ! Cauri’s Ruling on Objection & | gsineg | Overruted: ‘Objection Number 7 { “For these reasons,the ethical and logal rules in California and across other United States jurisdictions make clear that a lawyeris gener: hy allowed to undestake representation advetse to a former client. A different rule applies, however, where the subject of the representation the fawyer is undertaking is ‘substantially related” to the subject matter ofthe attorney's representation of a former clicot. fn thet instance,there is a presumption based on the ‘substantial relationship" between the twe matters thatthe lawyer necessarily leamed confidences during the ewer representation ofthe former client tbat are materially relevant tothe current represeniation. Under hose circumstances, the former client's interestin preserving confidences the client shared with the attorney generally riggers a rule barring the lawyer from undertaking representation adverse to the} formerclient on thoes substantially related matters.” (Marshall declaration, page 4, line 21—page 5, Hine 2) Grounds for Objection 7%: Improper legal opinion (vid. Code § 807; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal, | App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803);lacks | foundation (Evid, Code § 403(a)); expert witness not qualifiedto teader opinion on California disqualification law (Evid. Code § 720). & [PROPOSED]ORDERGN EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS TC MARSHALL DECLARATION 117 * ® Court's Ruling on Objection| sustained: Overruled Objection Number 8 ! | say eosucting he dutyto withdraw to instances in which there is 2 ‘substantial relationship’ between the subjects of the Former and current representation in order to protect client confidences, the governing rulesand lawstrike a balance between the imperative of protecting former clients’ legitimate interests and the imperative of ensuring thet former-clieut conflicts are nat construed 30 broadly that they become the equivalentofper se rules thal threaten curtent clients’ choice of counsel and significantly impair lawyer mobility. For this reason, whatever confidencesa lawyer may have learned in the course of representing a former client do not bat the lawyer from taking on | positions adverse to that client unless the two malters are ‘substantially related.” The governing cules arc law are earefulnot to construc the “substantialrelationship’ too looselyfor that would risk transforraing the limited probibition of undertaking certain representations adverse to former clients into a broad prohibition akin to the bar on undertaking representation adverse to current clients, ‘The goveming rules and law emphatically eschew thatresult.” (Marshall declaration, page 5, lines 4 15) Groundsfor Objection 8: Improperiegal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal App. ath 1155, 1180 (3999)); opinion based on impraper matter (Bvid, Code § 803); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(6)); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on California | { Court's Ruling on Objection |gcrined, ]L Overruled: | ‘Objection Number 9 /7bus,the relevantinquiry is never whetheris some relationship between the former end currest fhgtter. Rather, the inquiry looks to the suBstantiatity ofthatrelationship. $0, too, the Califorata s é TPROPOBEDYCIDER ON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MARSHALLDECLARATION || 118 He ns on , Br nv er s& | cule does not bara lawyer from undertaking representation adverse to a formerclient simply because the lawyer has former-client confidences that are somichow relevant to the curent representation. Rate, i Yrvits its rostrition to instancesin which any focmer-ciicn confidencesare mateval to the current represeniation, See California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310(6). See alsoFremont Indemnity Co, v. Fremont General Corp., 43 Cal. App Ath 50, 69 (2006) (dsquatiticationis oly in order where “information acquired during thefts representation [is]“material”tothe second; that is, Lamasbe found fo be directly at issue in, or have somecriticalimportance t,the second representation’).” (Mersbalt declaration, page 5, lines 16-25) Grounds for Objection 9: Improper legalopinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. App.41155, 1180 (1999)); opinion based on improper matter (Evid, Code § 803); lacks | foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)}; expert witness not qualified to senderopinion on California disqualification law (Evid. Code § 720). Y Objection Number 10 i "Relating these principles to the matter of Gibson Dunn's continued represestation of Paul Hastings im the above-captioned case, the former representation relevant here was Orin Snyder's having once. represented David Saperstein in lation toa criminal grand jury investigation into Mr. Saperstin’s | investments in a Bond Linked Issue Premium Stoucture (‘BLIPS"). By contast, the current representation involves Gibson Dunn’s representation of Paul Hastings In a sult by Mr. Saperstein ileging that Paul Hastings committed malpractice by failing to property advise Mr. Saperstein about bow to set up a trustand ensure thata particular piece of real estate would not be irewied as ‘community propertyin the event of dissolution of his marriage or othervtise be awarded tohis wife. Nothing in Me. Saperstein’s suit against Paul Hastings has anything to do with the criminal implications of the BLIPS investment, Nor does Mr. Saperstein’s suit against Paul Hastings relate toany substantiallyrelated issues such as Mr. Saperstein’s investments in other tex shelters. On hein ace, therefor, there is nothing about these two matters that renderthem ‘substantiallyrelaied? 3 TPROPOSE| ORDER ON EVIDENTIARYOBIECTIONS TO MARSHALL DECLARATI 7 119 He wm ia nn ,B eM we rr & Lo ma n Ge |@ ® ina manner that forecloses Gibson Dunn from representing Paul Hastings ia this matter, It is alwaye possible to discuss s current and former matter ata high enough level ofabstraction that they coud bbe described as ‘substantially rslatcd,’ Here, for example, one covld say that both cases generically involve Mr. Sapersiein’s finances, The ‘substantia! relationship" fest, however, demands a far mare fact specific and conerste showing of substantive overlap." (Marshall declaration, page 3, line 26-— page 6, line 14.) Grounds for Objection 1 improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilberl, 69 Cal. App. dth £155, $180 (19999); opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); opinion base: ‘n opinion orstatement of another (Evid. Code § 804); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)};lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a});expert witness not qualified to render epinion on California disqualification law(Evid. Code § 720), [Courts Ruling ov Objecti [** Objection Number 1 Mr. Saperstein's Motion to Disqualify Gibson Dunn alieges that Gibson Dunn is barred from | proceeding with its representation of Paul Hastingsinthis matter because,among other reasons, Gibson Dunn asked several questions about the BLIPS criminal investigation dusing e deposition {In my opinion, the fact that a few questions wore asked in discovery does notcreate u “substantia! relationship" between the two matters, Nor does it show that anything relating to the BLIPS ctinninal matter is ‘material to Gibson Dunn's ongoing representation of Paul Hastings. Asthe declaration of Kevin 8. Rosen establishes, those questions were asked (ota time that he was unaware oF any conceivabie conflict)as part of a broad series of questions abouta large number oftopicsthat might have led to elevant information and might have established that other arcas ofinquiry ate not relevantin this litigation, Such questions do not elevate a matterto the levelofa “substantielly | elated”case or transform otherwise irrelevantinformation into ‘materially relevant’ information.” Cytarshalt dectaration, page 6, lines 15-26.) TPROPOSED] ORDER ON EVIDENTIARY OBTECTIONS 70 MARSHALL DECLARATION 120 an mi an , Be nn er t € 10 u 2 B 14 6 16 7 18 19 20 a 2B 24 26 Ee] 28 Groundsfor Objection 14: Improper texal opinion (Evid, Code § 801; Sumuners v. Gilbert, 69 Cal App, 4th 1155, 1180 (1999)), opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); opinionbesed ‘on opinion or statement of another (Evid. Code § 804); lacks Foundation (Evid, Code § 403(a)) lack of personal knowledge (B Code § 702(a)}; expert witness not qualified to render opinion on California disquatification law (Bvid. Code § 720). [Court'sRuling on Objection Sustuined. fr Overruled: Objection Number 12 ‘any event, as Mr, Rosen's declarationexplains, Gibson Dunn (on behalfof tsclient, Paul Hastings) has no interestin any further information about the BLIPS eriminal matter, and nothing about the eximinalinvestigation will be made an issue in this ease.In ight ofthis posture, its evidentthat nothing aboutthe BLIPScriminal matters is ‘substantially related’ to the current Fepresentation and that nothing Mr. Sayder Izemed aboutthat subjectis material to Gibson Dunn's ongoing representation of Paul Hastings. This is consistent with the repeatedly expressed views of Mr. Saperstein’s counselthat nothing about the criminalinvestigation of BLIPS isin any way relevant tothe cursent litigation. No ongolng cosiflct exists,then, based on any connection between this case and issues pertaining to the criminal BLIPS investigetion Mr. Snyder handled. See UMG Recordings, Ine. v. Myspace, Inc, 526 F. Supp:2d 1046, 1062 (C.D. Cal, 2007) (law firm's | stipulation that it would not be pursuingthe issue that was substantially related to a prior | presentation obviated any reason for disqualification).” (Marshall declaration, page 6, ine 20— page 7, line 10.) Grounds for Objection 12: Improper legl opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v, Gilbert, 83 Cat. | App. 4ih 1155, 1180(1999)y; opinion based onimproper matter (Evid. Code § 803); opinion based on opinion of statement of another (Evid. Code § 804);lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)}; lack | of personul knowledge (Evid, Code § 702(a)); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on Galifornia disqualification law (Bvid. Code § 720). oeTPROFOSEDI ORDER ONHVIDENTIARYOAIEGTIONSTO MARSHALLDECLARATION” 121 Hev eti ons . Be nn er & se da n 18 8 i i } explained above, itis always the case that a lawyer learns a significant amouit ofinformation about Objection Number 13 “In addition to claiming that Gibson Dunn's questions about the criminal BLIPS investigation render these (wo matters substantially related, Mr. Sapctsiein’s Motionto Disqualily makes # far more attenuated—and in my opinion unsustainable claim. It claims that because Me. Snyder dealt ‘ith a criminal cavestigation that involved advice Mr. Saperstein received fram KPMGon the specitie issue ofthe legalityofBLIPS,it follows thatMr. Snyder (and asa result, Gibson Dunn)is forever barred from taking on any representation adverse to Mr. Saperstein on any matterin which his relationship with KPMG might be relevant, no matter how unrelated tothe BLIPS issue orthe criminal investigation. The problem with this argument is thatit does notaddress the core question of substantia! of material factual and legalrelationship-which focuses ou the substantive faotuat and legal overlap of the former and current representations. Instead, Mr, Saperstein's Motionto Disqualify looks only tothe idemity of the individuals and entities invelved in the cases, AS 4 client—ineluding the client's interaction with family, friends and advisors. This does not meen ‘Oat any case in which such relationships might be relevantis therefore ‘substantially related’ to an ‘acfier case that touched on those relationshipsin other contexts and with regard to otherissues.” (Marshall declarstion, page 7, ines11-25.) Grounds for Objection 13: Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal App. 4th 1155, 1180 (19999); opinion based on improper matter(Evid. Cade § 803); opinion based | (on opinion or statemeat of another (Evid. Code § 804); lacks foundation (Evi Code § 403(a)} lack vid. Code § 702(a)); expert witness not qualified to reader opiniou on Sustained: V7 | Overt: of personel knowledge ( California disqualification law (Evid.Code §720) [SEE RE TROPOSED] ORDERON EVIDENTIARY OBIECTIONS TO MARSHALL DECLARATION 122 Hiv ini aan ,B ea ne ry & Objection Number i4 “To conclude otherwise—i.,, to conclude that anoverlap in the identity ofindividuals involvedis enough to constitute a ‘substantial relationship’—is incensistent with he ways in which thatlest is applied by courts. Were overlapin identity enough, any formerclient could assert in any case that {the clicnt’s own involvementin both matters creates un identity overtap that constitutes a “substantial celationship.’ ‘That is most certainly not the way in which the lave applies the test, far ch a loose apprcoch to the ‘substantial relationship’ test would turn the general rule allowing representation onits head. The focus, then,is not on whether someindividuals are involved in both saatters, but is instead on whetherthereis a ‘substantialrelationship’ betweenthe factualand legal substance of the two matters.” (Marshal declaration, page 7, line 26—~page B, line 6.) Grounds for Objection t4: Improper logat opinion (Evid. Code § 801; wnmers v. Gilbert, 89 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1189 (1999)); opinionbased on improper mattes (Evid, Code § 803); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)}; expert witness not qualified to render opinion on Califomin Sustained: _/ Overrated: Objection Number 15 lisqualification law (Evid. Code § 720). Court's Ruling on Objection a “For these reasons,the fact that Mr. Snyder interviawed severalof Mr. Saperstein’s advisors about specific issues relatingto the BLIPS criminal investigation and reviewed documents relating tothe! advisors" roles in advising Mr. Saperstein about the legality ofthe BLIPSinvestments, does not mean that Gibson Dunn is conflicted from undertaking any representations adverse to Mr. Saperstein in which distinot issues relating to thase advisors may be at issue. Were such interviews lo create a ‘bar. a lawyer would be barred (rom ever undertaking « representation adverse to a formerclient given the inevitability of the lawyer having interviewed and received records fromand relatingto the formerclient” (Marshall declaration,page 8 lines 7-14.) | Grounds for Objection 15: Lmproper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. | 4th 1155, 1180 (1999)}:opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803);opinion based 10. ‘{PROPOSED] ORDER ON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MARSHALL DECLARATION || 123 He wi ia ns De vi ne ? re ma in s @ # [on opinion or statementof another (Rvid. Code § 04); tacks fourdation (Evid. Code $ 403(s)) lack 2 |] ofpersonal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); expert witness not qualtlied to render opinion on 3 | Califoruin disqualification aw (Evid. Code § 720), 4 Court'sRuling oneoSustained: ! 5 5: Overruled: |‘ ee = 7h Objection Number 16 8 I!"Mr. Superstein’s Motionalso appears toallege that withdrawal or disquniifcation are in orderhere 9 | case a. Snyer ened sme spelconfences tht are elevthe istnt litigation, tis 10 || my opinion, which [ have conveyed to Gibson Dunn,thatgivenits havingsatisfied itself that Mr. 11 ] Snyder never ieamed confidential information materially rclevant tothe ongoing matter, and in the 12 |Jabsence of any actual proof to the contrary, Gidson Dunn has no coaflictand thereis no reason for it 13 | 10 withdraw orbe cisqualified from its ongoing representationofPaul Hastings. See generally | 14 || Elliot v. McFarland Unified SchoolDistrict, 65 Cal. App. 3a 562, 572 (1985) {party seeking 15 {f disqualification mut,in the absence of a showing tha the two mattersare themselves “substantially 16 |] related, make an actual showing that relevant confidences were disclosed"). Although itis not my 17 |[rote usm expert to resolve any disputed facts, my review of Mr. Sapersicin'’s Motion to Disqualify 18 | Gibson Dunn, the accompanying declarations, nd the deloration submited byMr. Snyder reveals 19 that Mr. Snyderis steadfast that he only inquired about advice provided lo Mr, Saperstein regarding 20 the legality underthe tax laws of the BLIPSinvesttnents and hed no interest in delvinginto any 21 | broader questions shout the role KPMG arothers were playingin any other facets of Mr. 22 || Saperstein’s financial Geatings. I have seen no evidence to the contrary that would lead me to opine | 23 ||that Gibson Dunn has a duty to withdraw.” (Marshall declaration, page8, line 15—page 9, line 2.) 24 Grounds for Objeetion 16: Improperleyal opinion (Evid, Code § 801; Summers v. Gitbert, 69 Ca, | 25 || App. 4h 1155, 180 (1999); opinion based ou improper matter(vid Code § $03); opinionbed 26 |; on opinion or statemort of another (Evid. Code § 804); lacks foundation(Evid. Code § 403(a)}; lack 27 Hof personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(e)); expert witness uot qualified to vender opision on 28 |fPatifornia disqualificationlaw (Bvid. Code § 720). ikfe ue 124 He nm io ns ,B es we ry & i) it B 4 15 16 Is 19 2 au 22 23 Py 26 a 8 { Court's RulingonObjection aye || ie Overruled: Objection Number 17 “All ofthe foregoinganalysis presupposes a sitvation in whichthe function and purpose of the limsted protibition on successive representation appliesbecause the attomey learned confidencesin the earlier representation that continue to be confidential, None of this reasoning would upply, ‘though,in instancesin which any materially relevent confidences the attorney teamed from the Forme: representation have ceased to be confidential—whether because they have become public knowledge or because theformerclient has waived (explicitly or constructively) any right to have {he information remain confidential. In such a situation,there are no remaining confidences to be protected, and applying a rule designed to protectthe former elicnt's confidences would be senseless (and wastofulof the parties’ and court's resouroes).” (Marshall declaration, page9, lines 4-12.) |Grounds for Objection 17; Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert,69 Cal, ‘App. 4th L155, 1180 (1999)); opinionbased on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(@)); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on Califomia disqualification taw (Evid. Code § 720); irelevant (Evid, Code §§ 20, 351 i ‘Court's Ruling on Objection 2 it nee > Sustained: Overruled: Objection Number 18 i [For example,assume that a former client asserts a conflict on the ground that duting the earlier representation the lawyer reviewed a memorandum from the client describing the client's general | employment policics—a memorandum that fs materially relovant ta a new matter in whichthe lawyeris undertaking representation adverse tothe formerclient. Ordinarily, that could constitute reason to disqualify the attorney from proceeding onbehalf of the new client, depending on the details ofthe facts,circumstances and issues, Bot if that very document was alreadyin the public {dorain, becauseit was introduced into evidence in some other praceeding, there would be no reason beig “2 TPROPOSED] ORDER ON EVIDENTIARY OBIECTIONS TO MARSHALL DECLARATION 125 He wb io nn , Be nn er & Lu nm an tur || no confidencesleft to preserve, and any new lawyer would have full access to the inforruation in whatsoeverfo pretend that disqualifying the lawyer would preserve the confidences of the clicat, See generally Restotemen! Third, The Law Governing Laveyers § 59 (“Contitential client information consists of information rclating tothe representation of a client, otherthan information thatis generally known."). Any lawyer epresenting the current perty would have readyaccess to the docament, so the former lasers witha or disqualification fromte representtion would | [not serve any inverest in preserving the confidentiality ofthe documentin question. As one | California court has explained, disqualiticalion is not appropriate where replacementof counsel ‘would leave the adversary in the sumeposition as before” with regard tothe disclosure of the Information, See Neat v, Health Net Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 831, 844 (2002)." (Marshall declaration, page 9tines 13-28,) Grounds for Objection 1 Improperlegal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gllberi,69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999)); opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Corle § £03);lacks. Foundation (Evid, Code § 403(a)}; expert witness not qualified to render opinion on Califoraia ‘disqualification law (Bvid. Code § 720); irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-351). I [CourlingoOBSaas ‘i Objection Number 19 “The same principle would applyin aninstancein which the client has waived the confidentiality of the information that Forms the basis of the motion to disqualify. Again,in such a situation theve are question, There is no reason in such a case to disqualify the client's former lawyer because that isqvatification would not advance the former client's only legitimate interestpreserving the confidentiality ofinformationthatremains confidential.” (Marshall declaration, page 10, lines 1-6) Grounds for Objection 19: improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal, App. 4th 1155, 180 (1999); opinion based onimproper matter (Evid. Code § 803); lacks nundation(Evid. Code § 403(a)); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on California [jisqualifcstion law(Evid. Code § 720); ineievant (Evid. Code §§ 210,350-351), 13- TPROPOSED] ORDER ON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MARSHALL DECLARATION 126 He nm on n, Bo we r& | @ @ Sustained: <4 | je ‘Overruled: | a ( Court's Ruling owObject Objection Number 20 "For these reasons, even were this Court to conciude that the subject of Mr. Snyder's former represcatation of Mr. Saperstein and the subject of the current litigation are substantiallyrelated, oF {that Mr. Snyder teamed confidencesthat are mate to the current matter, there would stil be no basis for disqualificationifthe relovant information is no longer confidential." (Marshall declaration, page 10, lines 7-10.) | Grounds for Objection 20: Improper iegal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v, Gilbert, 69 Cal, 1 Apa. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999)}; opinionbused on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); opinion based j 01 opinion orstatement of another (Evid. Code § 804); lacks foundation (Evid. Cade § 40%); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); expert witness not qualified to rendet opinion on California disqualification law (Evid. Code § 720). Court's Rating on Objection =e 0: Oven Objection Namber 21 “Thatis precisely the situation that appearsto apply here. In the case now before the Court, Mr, Saperstein has sued Paul Hastings for professional malpractice relating 1 the advice it provided in structuring a trust and the acquisition and development of what has boen termed the "Cezohwood Estate,” Asa matter of lavi, the filing of such a suit places atissue the professional advice the plaintiff received from others relating to this subject and any other aspectof his claim and thus stitutes a waiver ofanyprivileges (and,afortiori, any confidences}related to the advice that the plaintiff received on the matter from other lawyers and advisors. See generally WellpobnHealth [Nerworks, Ine. v. Supertor Court, 59 Cal, App.4th 110, 128 (1997). Indeed, Mr. Soperstein and Paul Hastings entered into a stipulation on March 17, 2009 that reflects this legal principle. Atul this (Court has entered an Order to that very effect. The Order provides that Mr, Saperstein is waiving Ho ve n, BE MN Er T& - ca nn a ue | e ® ; distinction betweenseparate versus community property * * ¥; and Mr. Saperstein’s estate plan California lnw on is-issue privilege waivers (Evid, Code § 720). | [Court's Raling on Objection soinca. 7 - ‘nis attomey-clieat privileges applicable to documents and communivations relating to,” among, | other subjcets, the ‘acquisition and development of the property known as 350 Cérolwood of “Fleur de Lys,"* * * the characterization ofassets pursuant to appticable family law concerning the as well asthe impect ofsuch estate planning on any actual or potential tansuetions.™ (Marshall declaration, page 10, lines 11-25.) Grounds for Objection 24: linptoper legal opinion (Bvid. Code § 861 immer %. Gilbert, 69 Cat. App. ath 1155, 1180 (1999)}; opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); opinion based on opinion or statement of another (Evid. Code § 804);lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); expert witness not qualifiedto render opirion on 2: Overruled: Sele — ‘Objection Number 22 “As a result of this Order, as well as the underlyinglegalprinciples of waiver, sone of the potentially relevant information that Mr, Snyder night possibly have feared about Mr. Saperstein's retationships with KPMG orother advisors (including lawyers)is confidential at this point. Any awryer who represents Paul Hastings in this matter is entitled to seek discovery from and depose anyone—including Mr, Saperstein's former fawyers—about any information pertaining to these subjects. It is, therefore, nonsensical under these particular and somewhat peculiar circumstances {0 require Gibson Dunn to withdraw based on (what were once, but are no longer) canfidences that Mr, Snyder eight have leamed.” (Marshall declarstion, page 10, fine 26—page 11, line 5.) Grounds for Objection 22: improper legalopinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert,69 Cal App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); opinion based ‘on opinion or stalement of another (Evid. Code § 804); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(0)};expert witness not qualified to reader opinion on Califoruia law on in-issue privilege waivers (Evid. Code § 720) e 13 [PROPOSED] ORDERON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MARSHALLDECLARATION | 128 ‘Objection Namber 23 “In sum,any information that Mr, Snyder feared during his representation of Mr. Saperstein falls into one of two categories, {tis either notsubstantially related to the legalund toetaal anatersat issue inthis case,in which caseit tiggers no conflict Oritis substantillyreiated the legal and {factual matters at issue here, in which easeits confidentiality has been waived, Under ether scenario, there is no reason for Gibson Dunn to withdraw or be disqualified.” (Marshall declaration, page L1, fines 6-10.) Grounds for Objection 23: Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal, App. 4th 1155, 80 (1999)};opinion based on improper matier (Evid. Code § 803); opinion based. }on opinion or statement of another (Evid. Code § 804); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)}; lack. of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on California disqualification law (Evid. Code § 720). a | Overruted: i1 pap Ss ch Objection Number 24 "The force of the principle—thatthere are no confidencesto protect and thus no reason to disqualify |Gibson Dunn in order to protect non-existent confidences—is further confirmed by examining Mr. ‘Sapersiein’s claim that Mr. Snyder leomned information as a result of Mr. Saperstein’sinstructions to Paul Hastings to send Mr. Snyder‘ail fies relating to Pau! Hastingsrepresentation of me.’ By definition anything fs these files had already been disclosed to Paal Hastings-—the very defendantin shis suit, Paut Hastingsis, of course, entitled o use any and all information it knows to defend itself in this action,regardless of whetheritis defended by Gibson Dunn. Under these particular and ocular circumstances, it would defy reason, and be inconsistentwith the policies and niles fatticvisted in the appicabte caselaw, to conclude that Gibsor! Dunn must withdraw inorder to 16- 129 1 protect the confidentiality of any files that Paul Hastings itself sent to Mr. Snyder. In a situation such as this, withdrawal or disqualification would serve no purpose ‘becouse the efient continues to 3 possessthe information and will discloseit to replacement counsel—teavingthe opposingparty ia the identical position.’ Paul Vapnek, etal, CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY § 4:180 (2009)." (Marshall declaration, page 1, lines 11-24.) 6 || Grounds for Objection 24: Improper lega! opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Githert, 69 Cal, 7 App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opinion based on impropermatter (Evid. Code § 803}; opinionbused 8 |[on opinion orstatement of another (Bvid. Code & 804); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a);lack 9 jlof personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702(a)); expert witness not qualitied to render opinion on ion taw (Evid. Code § 720). 10 |] California disquatitica uw Coari’s Ruling on Objection R Pra i} ul Objection Number 25 There is no suggestionthat any ofthe individual lawyers who are working on behalf of Paul Hastings ever represented Mr. Saperstein on any matter. Any argumentfor withdrawal or He sn ea n, BE NM ET T& —a m a s i | (7 |} disqualification in this case is, therefore, the product of the absolute imputation principle—the | presumption that every lawyerin a firm knows whetany lawyerin the firm knows.” (Mars {] declaration, page 12, ties 2-5) || Grounds for Objection 28: Improper legal pinion (Evid. Cade § 801; Summers». Gilbert, 69Cal 21 |) App. ath 1155,1186 (1999)opinion based on impropermatter(Evid. Code § 803); lacks 22 foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a); expert winness not qualified to render opinion ox Califomin 23 imputation law (Bvid. Code § 720); irretevant (Evid, Code §§ 210, 350-351). | GearRallng onObjetON |wis 251) | as: ‘Overruted: 261) —S— oa ” Pa TPROPOSED]RDERON EVIDENTIARY OF 130 different firm years ngo. ‘These courts have reoognized that when circumstances make the risk of i # Objection Number 26 The principle of ebsoluteimputation historically has been based on the premise thallawyers within a firm speak freely about their cases with one another, andit is unreasonable to assume that a particular lawyer with materially relevant confidentia) information would neccssarily keep that quiet From other lawyers with whomshe works and routinely interacts. This principle ofimputation was Jonce a blankstrule that was mechanically applied. Asthe size of law firmshas grown so exponentially, however, and as firms have become so geographically diffuse, many courts in many Jurisdictions have recognized that the beloncing associated with deciding disqualificationmotions should take into account a pragmatic assessment of whether disqualifying an entire global firm is truly necessary or appropriate in order to addressthe legitimate interests ofa former client in guarding against use of confidences that & lawyer currently with the firm leamed while working at a disclosure of formerclient confidences so attenuated that they are virtually non-existent, here is no Justification for withdrawalordisqualification. Indeed, in such cases, courts often have expressed ear that a formerclient who seeksto disqualify opposing counsel is neting forthe strategic purpose ofaddingto its adversary's costs or removing an able opponent. Courts have warned about allowing disqualiGicationto be used in this manner. As the California Supreme Court has explained: “curcent clients have a rightlo retain their chosen counsel, and they will bearthe financial burden when their ‘hosen. counselis disqualified—a burden that an opponent may desire in order fo gin a tactioab advantage in the litigation.' City and County of San Francisca v, Cobra Solutions, 38 Cal. 4th 839, 851 (2006)."" (Mavahall declaration, page 12, lines 6-25} Grounds for Objection 26; Improper lega! opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999)}; opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Cove § 803); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)): expert witness not qualified to render opinion on Cali imputation taw (Evid, Code § 720), iretevant (Evid. Coule §§ 210, 350-351), Court's Rulingon Objection [5cine j 26 Overruled [PROPOSED] GROGA OW BVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONSTO MARSHALLDECLARATION 131 He ve ie an , B an ne rs € G om ma n Objection Number 27 itis unclear whether the California Supreme Court stitl applies the principle of i ipuration as a absolute rule thatis subjectto no exceptions. ‘The California Supreme Court at one timeindicated, in dicta, that the presumption of shared confidences is ircebuttable. See Flatt». Superior Court, 9 JCal, 4th 275, 283 (1994), In. more recent dictum, however, the Court signaled that it might support a Alferent approach, suggesting that the presumptionthat information known by any one lawyer ina firm is known by all lawyers in thatfirm can be rebutted in some cases. See People ex rel. Dep't of Corporations v. Speedee Oli Change Systems, fnc., 20 Cal, ath 1135, 115t-1152 (1999)}. The United States Court of Appeats for the Ninth Citcuit has recognized this chang the approach of the California Supreme Court. Sec fn re County ofLos Angeles, 223 F.34 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2000). ‘This more contextual and practical approachhas beet recognized as well by at least ane California Appellate Court. Sec Farris v, Fireman's Fund lns. Co., 119 Cal. App. 41h 671, 689 n.17 (2004)." (Marshall declaration, page 12, line 26—page 13, tine 9.) Grounds for Objection 27: improper legal opinion (Bvid. Code § 801; Summers v, Gilbert, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opinion based on improper matter (Evid, Code § 803); lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)); expert witness notqualified to render opinion on California i imputation law (Evid. Code § 720);irrelevant (Bivid. Code §§ 220, 350-351), CourtsRalingoaObiesioa” SauinegV7] Overruled: Objection Number 28 | 1 is my opinion thatthe difference between situations in which a lawyer working on a current matter had direct knowledge of material former-client confidences, versus situations in which a lawyer working on a current matteris imputed with knowledge of former-client information, is an important consideration regarding the propriety of disqualification. When courts use their power to disqualify counsel theyare acting throughtheie inherent powerto furtherjustice. As the California [Supreme Coust has recognized, this process requires careful consideration ofthe competing equities: "When disqualification is sought because of an attorney's successive representation of clients with fs 19. 2 PROPOSED] ORDER ONEVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS TO MMARSHALL DECLARATION 132 He vi ca n, BE AN ET & Iterimproper matter (Bvid. Code § 803); opinion based on opinion orstatementof another(Evid adverse interests,the tie} court must balance the current client's right to the counsetofits choosing against the formerclient's right to enswrc thatits confidentialinformation will not be divulgedor used by its former counsel.” City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solwions, Inc., 38 Cal. th 839, 846 (2006). This balancing of competingvalues formed by the actual risk that client ‘confidences that one lawyer possesses will, in fbet, become known to the lawyers whoare actually working om the current matter.” (Marshal! dectarat on, page 13,lines 10-22.) Grounds for Objection 28; Improperlegalopinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal. ‘App. 4th 1155, 1180 (1999); opinion based on improper mater (Evid. Code § 803); lacks foundation(Evid. Code § 403(a)); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on California imputationlaw (Evid, Code § 720);irrelevant (Evid, Code §§ 210,35 3p Objection Number 29 “tn this case, Mr, Snyder works in the New York office, while the Gibson Duan lawyers working on this matter are all inthe firm's Los Angeles office, Within one day oflearningthet Mr. Snyder had Fepresented Mr. Saperstein on an unrelated mater and thatMr. Saperstein’s current counsel was raising concems abouta conflict this created, Gibson Dunn erected an ethical screenbetween Mr. Snyder and all lawyers workingon the Paut Hastings matter. ‘This screen was in keeping with the ‘best practicesfor sich ethical screens, including directions to all Gibson Dunn lawyers, paralegals tnd secretaries that Ms, Snyder do no work on the Paul Iestings meiter;that nediscussions ofthese ‘matters take placcin the presence of Mr. Snyder; that no information xbout the masterbe disclosed to Mr, Snyder; and that Mr, Snyder have no access to any documents, fiesor materials relating io | the Paul Hastings mater.” (Marshall deciaration, paue (3, line 23—page 14,ine 4.) Grounds for Objection 29: Lack of personal knowledge (Evid, Code § 702()); improper toga opinion(Evid. Code § 801; Summers « Gilbert, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1155, 1180(1999)); opinion base 220. [PROPOSED] GROER ONEVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MARSHALL DECLARATION 133 em es an m, Be er y & Do ne n ie ii ® ® Code § 804); lacks founslation (Evid. Code § 4033); expert witness not qualified to render opiniowt Sustined: 7 Overruled: ‘on California imputation law (Evid. Code § 720) (Court's Rating on Objection Objection Number 30 “Regardless of whetherthis type of screen is enough to avoid imputationofa plein and strong sonflict, itis my opinion thatthe presence ofthe screen impacts the balance ofequitiesin @ case [where any conflict (even ifthe court wert to conclude that onc exists) i very attenuated and remote to begin with. This case presents an instance where the relationship between the matters is quite remote and where the waiver ofprivilege as to any relevant confidences associated with the former representation rendersthe purpose ofthese rules weakened, ifnot entirely moot. Adding yet another layer of artificiality by imputing Mr. Snyder's knowledge to all lawyers at Gibson Dunn, despite the safeguards in place, would stretch the former-clisat-conflict rule well beyond its natural contours” (Marshall declaration, page 14, tines 5-13.) |Grounds for Objection 30: Improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal, |App. 4h 2155, 1180 (1999); opinion based onitsproper matier (Evid. Code § 803); opinionbased ‘08 opinion or statementofanother (Evid. Code § 804); Jacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a));tack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code § 702); expert witness not qualified to render opinion on Califomia imputation law (Evid. Code § 720). [CourtsRulingonObjection Objection Number 31 "Mr. Saperstein alludesto the possibility thet he mightwish to call Mr. Snyder as a witness. Motion to Disqualify at 11. Nothing aboutthe fact that Me. Snyder is now al Gibson: Duon would affect Me. Saperstein's right to do that. California Rule of Professional Conduct $-210 only bars anindividual lawyer from ‘acting as an advocate before # jury which will hear testimony ftom the member.” As ai TPROPOSED] ORDER ON SVIGENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MARSHIALL DECLARATION } the Official Commentexplains, this Rule does not apply"20 circumstances in whieh a lawyer in an Jadvocate’s firm will bea witness.” (Marshall declaration, page U1, lines 25-28.) Grounds far Objection 31: Improper legal opinion (Hivid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Ci App. 4th 1155,1180 (1999)); opinion based on improper matter (Evid. Code § 803); opinion based on opinion or statement ofanather (Evid, Code § 804); lacks foundation (Evid. Code § 403(a)};lack. of personal knowledge (Evid, Code § 702(8)); expert witness not qualified tu render opinion on California evidence law (Evid. Code § 720); relevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350-381), Court's Ruling on Objection Me IT 1$ SO ORDERED, DATED: Dusmbuutl2004 Jutige of the Superior Court Respectfully submitted by: ]HENNIGAN, BENNETT & DORMAN LLP By (An ben Paul B. Derby Attorneys for Plaintiff David I. Saperstein Dated: Novernber 24, 2009 2 {PROPOSED} ORDER ON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TOMARSHALL DECLARATION 135 1 PROOFOF SERVICE 2 3 declare asfollows: 4 lam a resident ofthe Stato of Culifornia and over the age of eighteen years, and nota party to the within action; my business address is 855 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2900,Los Angeles, California 90017. On November 24, 2009, | served the foregoing document described as [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF DAVID I, SAPERSTEIN'S EVIDENTIARY ‘OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF LAWRENCEC. MARSHALL FILED IN 7 | SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT PAUL. HASTINGS,JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OFGIBSON8 | DUNN & CRUTCHERLLPon theinterested partiesin this action follows: >| a by transmitting via facsirale the documents listed above ta the fax numberset forthi below onthis dave, ‘This transmission was reported as complete without error bya10 transmission report issued by the faosimile machine upon which the said ‘wansmission was made immediately followingthe transmission. A true and correct, n ‘copyofthe said transmission is attached hereto andincorporated herein by this reference. 5 "lw byplacing the documentlisted sbave in a sealed envelope with postage thereoni 3 fully propai, inthe United Staves mail at Los Angeles, California acdressed asset i forth below 4 @ by electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) listed above to be transmitted ai Et45 ‘byelectronic mail to the individuals on the service tist as set forth below. i y a byplacing the documentlisted above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre-paid 746 air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered toa agentfor og Delivery i byplacingthe document tisted above ine sealed envelope and causing the envelopePa 8= to bedelivered by rmessenger tothe individuals on the service list as set forth é below. | Kevin 8. Rosen, Esq. » Jason C.Lo, Faq. 21 |Will Bémonsoo,Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 22 333 South Grand Avenue Loa Angeles, California 90071 B Krosen@aibsondunp.com sloigibsondunn 24 || ‘westmenson(@aibsondunn.com 25 (Delivered by e-mail and U.S. mail) ; He és mm an s B ee me r? & om ua n te Ronald M. Oster, Esq. e M, Codiéon, Esq Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 515 SouthFlower Street, 25th Floor ‘LosAngeles, California 90071 ronaldoster@paulhastinessom || svesodilon(@paulhestings com \ (Detivered by e-mail and U.S. mail) q e am redily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence formailing, Underthat practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same daywith postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. [ am aware thst on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postal meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing inaffidavit, Executed on November 24, 2009, at Los Angeles, California, D1 declare under penalty ofperjury under the favs ofthe State of California cat the above |is true and correct. | 7 Idectare uncer penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of Ametica that theabove istrue and corect. | Ge MaraPE ~~ | - PROOFOF SERVICE — 137 Exhibit 32 138 PennLaw Faculty: Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., expert on Legal Ethics, Professional Responsi... Page I of 3 @§Penn Law‘xmanr 6Fearne Uo Rea Geoffrey C, Hazard, Jr. Emprttus Professor of Law Te. J “eboptone 84086407 ® Fac 25702026 cower net ghemtewpom oct Curicaan vise PF) Education = WB -Cohmia 94 +A denne, ry tiedpratheprimaryReng henth eur eineCiPromhatin,hoth MengtestdtzamintyArnoadurtin ctoitellaLUMAPegaToumaCvtratdoe wich attceoo modelocl peathseeradageteeaenmayse aaylas, ceilameins,ory Hooks Agi Dd). lga is: A GomporatinSySan oecanes othe‘al pntenanramoder dele ust. Padecb ADA Mice Pach Award a Protefenl Repos,Anes BatPetsReemleWeekPendenAvaCeaUsrerty Scoala kineitonMelroseSse,agCoinsPromina‘ktofuteth neonSlSapir CoPonitrio!ese TansadteaaBas Rao‘ak aratearvaygs(ie Expertise rameineepnty enacn Books onsFouvaunontoraunt Lav: Ft YeMOM[nts219){ih DoughWea ‘eas EneoFLArheRePre201) ahSoaoioperaag, Coben 8WyWent ALYUNSDEOITeenesres oF MANOTCNCLFROCEUAE0093. scesos & onanaror tootiANGEL BONDSanPre)(louie ee) ‘ueLaoLarmn0 (whWL EopESa2069 alti ta) becomProcess:aEiMAARTABUYaleHes3) donate ee Aioles and Book Chapters th aeRea. "hay resReady: Prosar orlate65 UT. LAY. Lupsiiwww lawupenn.edulefifaculty/ghszard/ 10/25/2013, 139 Penn Law Faculty: Geoffrey C, Hazard, Jr., expert on Legal Ethics, Professional Responsi,... Page 2 of 3 eskPrecrptin MrsSalon OrConroeSyn, 84TRB. 4 (200 ia recede ComparaFrapcie 49512. Te Rteons6010 sreesi2 MoCoae6HARTL799(2009)Doesein yhreavneegee by Congresenn peUP ba ban2008), Chaenges aotakingaSptpage 72. Lav. we ‘ny Talon tennerPasa]hl PresPAW, CLRS.000 esosfadesadASrtes is CandCommon Za omLingering MecoCmconig CtLs9 CEAMELL IML.aoe}Gs age Pond "TheorieDstsCant he Medontheaan4G69205 ‘Angan ened PrinofegalSet: ern Rogetond Prat 27A80788h pteCnetteresternLaw Pre,0ORL CTY LR. 485 (2009. vneaetry 2 Des Mie e590 "weYaMatson GilEnsoleHi. MONS. BaCot, see:FALLesNewCLUETE (3009)sed rren = Muayato Rar STOUR GetaCr.resboa27 LeveLPtHoe “LauerfoureThe engRobeaoFr Ledear 9D.RV.79(205). An Bayernrare: The Batrefenda!ier Goel 5) BEL 8(4). ‘mownonte Law (essigDanhapaBhsPro heLeys Poin ofegYAAYOM roe TEL Atsa 79 (2000. aayforthe Staion 39 VA9. RM. S7 (80008 ‘ircbkteigfatns16Ta1RE 49 hob dedanSpeSol tom penancefd eh Research Areas + CsSut aoDixy ineenPrete + Compania G8 Proce + tangerinerteos Positions Pea Law -etsProanar ef Law 2005 TatePraerLa984-209} {WPfe97-9egfener ofLer Br(pe pty CatYl Sebelaansd Marat(a6‘eg Deu n8odbAle Dean Gs7720} eryaChee RofeorFL 964) UnterCal,eryPaeanofLew-SaAmmste Peter95869) “tngtearUnWigan,UneearatietsSane Unohago omeletPosChetery Courses + eweter + bagiis + Faerun + ae MerCone hipsv/www.law-upenn.edweffaculty/fghazard/ 1025/2013 140 Penn Law Faculty: Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., expert on Legal Ethics, Professional Responsi... Page 3 of 3 PennLaw 201 sonSePeea bitpsvyww.lew.upenn.edv/efifaculty/ghazard/ 19/25/2013 144 Exhibit 33 142 ‘Abputthe Michasl Franck Award rapsseverieanbaro-y/groupelpafessional_reapon Home>ABAGrouns~ Conter for ProfessionalResoonsiblliy» Awards>Awards Aboutthe Michael Franck Award ‘Aboot The Aerard “We oa Frick PredRepo ‘ened eral i hint ofitSn {bt ect te Sate Se oF teoan end ‘engineoman af poresony repuatanne pobeterest Freeh Oe ffialrander the meme 9 {ateprtsknatena-vg oareore (ha aRCla Cormuion neste te at timer ‘kinratinto Maa eae nse onth oe th ‘at Hoge of Daegatas prarte emperors ate het, ‘ode Fue Condt ondMat tsePeed ‘ones, PachFrancs wtano bx ertor trl) Ineleua nae, compasti,anf uncomes an aa when anjaacento the Dsgd fear ‘untored Oe Whoa Frevck etd Dons crvatanton Inetnaeaanceeachaa hes, ctveyefererieanerposton ‘eneratrne ie bet areneheiseeS. ‘sadough anomie’spent contenecko he ‘upd bar mrt song exlderaion 3 ht etre ‘nan, nterey sel cnttbuong made in acer {tng etejhFeItasca> oven re tenafireya Deete eamgtenrats wa oi be heconn 112003 ne Cotterfo SretesselRaspansoky Corsa oanvod nang te toe of he McaFete rs ‘annytatetel ati Contre on Pfestonl aunty base Dupe etaFrog he AKa Meet eachAumDuts eno chang, anis NOMINATIONS FOR THR 2014AWARD ARE HOW BetNC ‘tHe 2046 AWARD went ne pRESHNTED AT THE 48TH) ofl 2013 award Raciptent Rept Count Segre Ca1 eves dean Imadtaggerot, ‘tog she atsdcsers ngase Depronona) arfe "Moan and dreusers ronne. Foga2 ‘el. rtOe Aresol Crs, TaloBaewe Green MeBok Seve, te Rababon Out Cae Sey Deseepent Naor Creme Uluted om tt natnerttvetyCe Petit. Seto oft 19 1285 ae oad a Dent “Trav cbstog ofechtac soceset= 01iyoRweres festa 0 Me apaaceod erg oration tmpaet enters ofte Sea prone. He rssCots LO mtaon we Srta pubapres herJaiemploye woo narena ‘nam feBetaotherent efeis the decom end ‘uterotaaa!rk or MaeScr, Chete Sianced heema ng ne 19 ABAtalCaterer on Protea esperaily on ey 39,2011 Soe eer, bere Past Award Raclplent Past ichFranch A ana} ote innit. Orew2003 11:48 AM 143 ast Micluel Franck Award Recipients} The Center fr Profesional Res... htplivww.ameticanbaorglgroapslpofessional_rsponsibilitntiatve. Fordharn in 1983. EarllerIn her career she practiced law with the NowYork owfirm of Rogers & Wells and also served as an assistant United States attorney In the Southern District of New York. Inthe early 1990's, Ms. Daly was Instrumental In helping to cultivate academic work in legal ethics by gathering together low professors attending the ABA's annual National Canference on Professional Responsibilly to discuss teaching and scholarship projects. This tradition Is stil carrled on today. Her scholarly varitings and publications focused on corporate, comparative and cross-border practice, multidisciplinary partnerships and comparative approaches to professional responsiblity. She was 2 frequent speaker at CLE programs and events both nationally and Internationally, Ms, Daly served as the Reporter for the ABA Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice from 1998-2000; a member of the ABA ‘standing Committee on Professional Discipline fram 200i-12004; and on the Edltorial Board of the ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct.She was active in the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, the Assocation of Professional Responstbilty Lawyers, the New York Stare Bar Association, the Associationof the Sar of the Cityof New York and the Federal Bar Counc! Foundation. Professor Laurel S. Terry wrote of Ms. Daly’s lifetime of achievements, "Whenyou put all of these together, what you have {sa scholar who was a pioneerand a giant In the fleld and whose ‘work will be relied upon long beyond her untimely death.” Her dedication to family, community, and the legal profession will be deeply missed. Geoffrey C. Hazard,Jr. - 2008 Award Recipient Geoffrey Hazard is a towaring figure in American law and he has placed an indelible Imprint on legal ethics and professional conduct.” Philip S. Anderson 1998-1999 President American Bar Association A renowned teacher, author and advisor, Geoffrey C, Kazard Jr. Is, the ThomasE, Miller Distinguished Professorof Law at the 10202013 116 AM 144 Past Michael Frick Award Recipients | The Cente for Professional Ret... hitp:/www.americanbercepsroupalpeofesional_responsbiityintiative. ofl9 University of California Hastings Colfege of the Law, He has taught Civit procedure, legal ethics and federal jurisdictionat law schools, since 1988, including Boalt Hall (University of California, Berkeley), the University of Chicago, Yale University, and the Universityof Pennsylvania. His service to the American dar Assaclation Includes appointments to the Spectal Commission on Evaluationof Professional Standards (the *kutak Commission"), Ethics 2000 Commisston, Special Committae on the Code of Judicial Conduct; ‘Spedal Commission onthe Standards of Judicial Administration, and the Resource Team for High Profile Trials. He also serves as senior advisor to the ABA Section of Business Law, He has served as a memberof tha Standing Committee on Rules ofPractice and Procedures for the Judicial Conference of the United States and on Its Ad Hoc Committee on Mass Torts. He has beenthe executive director of hoth the American Bar Foundatlon (1964-1970) and the AmerteanLaw Institute (1984-1999), His publicationsinclude co-authorof a treatise and a casebook: in civil procedure and professional ethics and author of co-author of numerous books and articles. His professional awards In acknowledgment of his accomplishments incude the Ceremony of Salute from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,the Gold Medal from the International Insolvency Institute and the Kutak Award from the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education. LawrenceJ, Fox - 2007 Award Recipient “hils].. passion for professionalism has uplifted the aspirations and conduct of the legal community.” “With insight, humor, enormous energy and unclouded vision, he ts the constant consclence of the practicing bar...” Norma L, Shapira, Senior Judge United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania ‘Among his many professional accomplishments, Lawrence J. Fox was instrumentalia the creation and served as an active member of the ABA Commission cn the Evaluation ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct (Ethics 2000). The work of the Commission has served to advance the role of professional respanstbility law In the administration of Justice, notes Jeanne P, Gray, dlracter of the AGA Center for Professional Responsibility. ‘ic. Fox has also served as chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibiity and the Planning 107202013 11:46 AM 145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, AlmaY. Banuelos, declare as follows: Tam employedin the County of Los Angeles, State of California, 1 am over the age of cighteen years and am nota party to this action; my business address is 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071, in said CountyandState. On June 24 2016, | served the following documeni(s): JOINT MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF KEVIN S. ROSEN on the parties stated below, bythe following means ofservice: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Unlessotherwise notedon the attachedService List, BY MAIL: I placed a true copyin a sealed envelope or package addressed as indicated above, onthe above-mentioneddate, andplaced the envelopeforcollection and mailing. following our ordinarybusiness practices. 1 am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing correspondencefor mailing, On the sameday that correspondenceis placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service in the ordinary course of business in a sealed envelopewith postage fully prepaid. Tam aware that on motion ofparty served, service is presumedinvalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date ofdeposit for mailing set forth in this declaration, T declare underpenaltyofperjury under the lawsofthe State of California that the foregoingis truc and correct. Executed on June 2, 2016, at Los Angele,Galifoa, SERVICE LIST Kent L.. Richland Barbara W. Ravitz Joffrey E. Raskin Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, [2th Floor Los Angeles, California 90036 Attorneysfor Defendant and Appellant J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc Office of the Clerk of Court Los Angeles Superior Court 111 North Fill Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Office of the Clerk of Court Court ofAppeal Second Appellate District, Division Four 300 South SpringStreet Los Angeles, CA 90013