Attorney’s Competitive Decisionmaking Role Does Not Bar Entire Law Firm From Confidential Information

The court granted in part plaintiff's motion to preclude defense counsel from accessing documents marked "confidential - outside counsel only" based on counsel's financial interest in defendant. The court precluded one firm partner from accessing confidential documents because defendants essentially conceded that he was a competitive decisionmaker, but rejected plaintiff's argument that every member of the firm should be similarly precluded. "A crucial factor in determining whether there is a risk of inadvertent disclosure is whether counsel is a competitive decisionmaker. . . . Plaintiff argues that the retainer agreement essentially places [the law firm] in a joint venture with Defendants. . . . The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the relationship between [the law firm] and Defendants. However, Plaintiff has not cited, and the Court has not found, any authority to support Plaintiff’s proposal to preclude the entire [law firm] from access to its COCO designated information. . . . [T]he relationship created by the retainer agreement between [the law firm] and Defendants is more akin to an in-house counsel relationship than a joint venture. . . . [T]he retainer agreement, alone, is insufficient to confer competitive decisionmaker status on [lead trial counsel]. . . . [I]t is unlikely that [the litigation team] will be placed 'in the "untenable position" of having to refuse [Defendants] legal advice on a host of . . . decisions lest [they] improperly or indirectly reveal [Plaintiff’s] trade secrets.' Thus, the Court finds the risk of inadvertent disclosure by the [defense] litigation team does not rise to an unacceptable level."

Sonix Technology Co. Ltd v. Yoshida, 3-12-cv-00380 (CASD June 30, 2014, Order) (Bartick, M.J.)