Rothstein v. Samsung Electronics America CA2/3 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/20/23 Rothstein v. Samsung Electronics America CA2/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
    opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This
    opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN,                                             B324148
    Appellant,                                                Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No.
    v.                                                        20STCV20962
    SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
    AMERICA, INC., et al.,
    Defendants and Respondents.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Maren E. Nelson, Judge. Reversed.
    Paul S. Rothstein, in pro. per.; Spitz Law Group, Jeffrey
    Spitz; Center for Constitutional Litigation and Robert S. Peck for
    Appellant.
    Hunton Andrews Kurth, Brandon M. Marvisi, Michael J.
    Mueller, and Trevor S. Cox for Defendants and Respondents.
    _______________________________________
    INTRODUCTION
    Appellant Paul S. Rothstein appeals the order granting the
    motion to revoke his pro hac vice admission, filed by defendants
    Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA) and Samsung
    Electronics Co., Ltd. (together, defendants). The court concluded
    that Rothstein violated rule 4.2 of the State Bar Rules of
    Professional Conduct (Rule 4.2) by contacting non-party A-Plus
    Electronics and Engineering (A-Plus), an authorized service
    center (ASC) of defendants, because Rothstein argued that ASCs
    are defendants’ agents and Rothstein knew that defendants were
    represented. On appeal, Rothstein contends, among other things,
    that the court failed to decide whether A-Plus was defendants’
    agent, erred in concluding that the topic of the communications
    was any act or omission by A-Plus that could be imputed to
    defendants, erred in applying a rebuttable presumption of
    disqualification, and failed to find that the violation would have
    an ongoing effect on litigation. Although Rothstein’s conduct
    gives us pause, we agree with him in part and reverse.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    This appeal arises from a putative class action alleging that
    defendants violated Civil Code1 section 1793.03, subdivision (b),
    of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (§ 1790 et seq.) by
    failing to make replacement parts for plasma televisions
    available for the required seven years post-manufacture.2
    1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code.
    2 Section 1793.03, subdivision (b), provides: “Every manufacturer
    making an express warranty with respect to an electronic or appliance
    product described in subdivision (h), (i), (j), or (k) of Section 9801 of the
    2
    Rothstein, who is a member of the State Bar of Florida, filed the
    instant action against defendants and their ASC, Service Quick,
    Inc. (Service Quick),3 on May 29, 2020 on behalf of plaintiff
    Manuel Rivera-Melo. In July 2020, the court granted Rothstein’s
    application for pro hac vice admission. The operative second
    amended complaint (SAC), filed on November 17, 2021, added Eli
    Cesaletti as a plaintiff.
    The merits of the underlying litigation are not at issue.
    Rather, this appeal concerns the court’s order revoking
    Rothstein’s pro hac vice status based on its finding that Rothstein
    violated Rule 4.2 when he directly contacted A-Plus, one of
    defendants’ ASCs, during the pendency of the litigation.
    Prior to filing the instant action, Rothstein filed a
    complaint in federal court in the Northern District of California
    in April 2018 on behalf of Alexis Bronson against defendants,
    captioned Bronson v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (N.D.
    Cal., No. 3:18-cv-02300-WHA) (Bronson).4 In June 2019,
    Business and Professions Code, with a wholesale price to the retailer of
    one hundred dollars ($100) or more, shall make available to service
    and repair facilities sufficient service literature and functional parts to
    effect the repair of a product for at least seven years after the date a
    product model or type was manufactured, regardless of whether the
    seven-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product.”
    3 Service Quick has since been dismissed from the action.
    4 In May 2023, Rothstein filed a motion for judicial notice in this
    appeal. By order filed June 12, 2023, we deferred ruling on the motion
    to our decision of this appeal on the merits. Rothstein seeks judicial
    notice of briefs (Exs. A, F), complaints (Exs. B, H), discovery responses
    (Exs. C, D), an order (Ex. E), dismissals (Ex. I, J), and dockets (Exs. G,
    K) from Bronson and another federal action brought by Cesaletti. “This
    court may take judicial notice of court records outside the record on
    appeal, including unpublished orders and decisions in a related federal
    3
    Rothstein persuaded the judge in the Bronson action that an
    ASC’s alleged statement to a consumer that replacement parts
    were not available fell within an exception to the federal hearsay
    rules because “[t]he statements made by the authorized repair-
    center employee . . . were made by Samsung’s agent.” The
    Bronson action settled in May 2021 and was dismissed.
    Cesaletti, represented by Rothstein, previously sued
    defendants in federal court on December 1, 2020. He voluntarily
    dismissed his claims on March 16, 2021.
    Rothstein’s litigation strategy in this case involved
    establishing that A-Plus and other ASCs, including Service
    Quick, were Samsung’s agents. The operative second amended
    complaint alleges that the defendants failed to maintain an
    adequate inventory of parts or otherwise make functional parts
    available to its ASCs for the required seven years, in violation of
    proceeding. [Citations.] However, a litigant must demonstrate that the
    matter as to which judicial notice is sought is both relevant to and
    helpful toward resolving the matters before this court.” (Deveny v.
    Entropin, Inc. (2006) 
    139 Cal.App.4th 408
    , 418.) The federal actions
    involved the same defendants and the same counsel for plaintiffs and
    defendants. Both parties discussed the existence and timing of the
    federal actions below, and most of the materials of which Rothstein
    seeks judicial notice merely substantiate those discussions. Defendants
    cited Exhibit E in their briefing before the trial court and Exhibit D is
    already part of the record. We deny the request with respect to
    Exhibits A, C, and F, which we do not find helpful or necessary to our
    decision, but otherwise grant the motion. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
    We do not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters
    asserted in the documents. (Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 
    218 Cal.App.4th 1079
    , 1090.)
    4
    section 1793.03, subdivision (b).5 Plaintiffs allege that defendants’
    ASCs told them that parts were not available to repair their
    Samsung plasma televisions. Plaintiffs further allege that ASCs
    act as defendants’ apparent and/or actual agents in any
    representations about the availability of parts to consumers. The
    defendants and the ASCs, as their agents, make up the
    communication chain necessary to make repair parts available to
    consumers to effect repairs through ASCs. Defendants
    communicate the availability of parts through a national
    database, to which ASCs have access. As the final link to
    consumers, ASCs, with actual or apparent agency on behalf of
    Samsung, communicate the availability of repair parts. Plaintiffs
    allege that defendants are liable for any failure in the
    communication chain.
    During a hearing on March 22, 2021, Rothstein argued:
    “[W]e’re prepared to show the court that the part was not
    available for Mr. Melo when he went to the authorized service
    provider, that the authorized service provider, an agent of
    Samsung, did not know that — if the part was available, they
    were not provided information that that part was available.
    They’re an agent of Samsung.” Similarly, at a status conference
    on August 24, 2021, Rothstein argued: “[T]he guts of this case at
    this point are that, one, Samsung is responsible for the
    communications of its agents. And if it’s an authorized service
    provider, they provided incorrect information to the consumer.
    Does the consumer have a right to rely on that information? We
    5 The original complaint and first amended complaint similarly alleged
    that Service Quick “acted with apparent or actual agency on behalf of
    [defendants].”
    5
    submit that it does.” In March 2022, Rothstein, on behalf of
    plaintiffs, served requests for admission on SEA, including:
    “Admit that in October 2020, [A-Plus] was SEA’s agent.”
    On June 14, 2022, defendants filed a motion to revoke the
    pro hac vice status of Rothstein, and effectively disqualify him
    from representing plaintiffs, contending that Rothstein violated
    Rule 4.2 (b)(2) based on communications Rothstein had with A-
    Plus. The motion was accompanied by the declarations of two A-
    Plus employees. Michael Braude, a project manager for A-Plus,
    stated in his declaration that he spoke with Rothstein “in the
    summer of 2019 or 2020” and that Rothstein “asked questions
    about replacement PDP assemblies for a Samsung plasma
    television,” and Braude referred him to one of Braude’s
    colleagues, Carmen Huma. In December of 2020, Braude received
    a call from Rothstein and a woman. He believed that Rothstein
    asked about the availability of parts for a Samsung plasma
    television and asked Braude to provide a written statement that
    a part was not available. Braude again referred Rothstein to
    Huma.
    In her declaration, Huma stated that, to the best of her
    recollection, she received at least two calls from Rothstein and a
    woman in his office. She believed the first was in the summer of
    2019, but was not certain. Huma believed that, during the first
    call, Rothstein asked about the availability of replacement parts
    for the PN51F8500 Samsung plasma television and for a list of
    customers who had tried to get their televisions repaired but
    could not due to a lack of replacement parts. Huma did not
    remember what specific information she provided. Huma later
    received another call from Rothstein and the woman in his office
    and believed that they asked about the availability of
    6
    replacement parts for Samsung plasma televisions generally,
    rather than a specific model. Rothstein asked for an affidavit
    regarding the availability of parts, which Huma did not provide.
    Using a program on her phone that permanently logs the phone
    numbers of all callers, Huma verified that she had received at
    least one call from Rothstein’s office phone number. Huma
    recalled that she received enough calls from Rothstein that she
    blocked his number, although she did not have record of this
    because she had switched phones since the time she received his
    calls.
    In further support of their motion, defendants cited
    Cesaletti’s response to defendants’ request for “all the facts
    supporting the contention in Paragraph 50 of the Second
    Amended/Supplemental Class Action Complaint that ‘[u]pon
    information and belief, Samsung Authorized Service Centers, tell
    consumers that parts are not available to repair their Samsung
    plasma televisions.’ ” In a supplemental response, Cesaletti
    stated: “I have become aware through this litigation that Mike at
    A-plus, through his associate name Carmen (phonetic), could
    check the Samsung GSPN database for parts. In or around
    October 7–10, 2020 and again in December 2020, Mike indicated
    that after checking with Carmen who consulted GSPN, that he
    knows the parts were not available and they were not available
    for a long time. When he checked the model number of my
    television, he indicated that the parts were not available.”
    Defendants’ attorney further declared: “On April 29, 2022,
    counsel for the parties, including Mr. Rothstein and I, conferred
    by telephone. Mr. Rothstein refused to substantively discuss his
    communications with A-Plus, including whether those
    7
    communications violated California Rule of Professional Conduct
    4.2.”
    In response to the motion, plaintiffs argued that Samsung
    did “not identify any information [Braude and Huma] actually
    revealed that would bias the litigation” and thus failed to
    demonstrate that any new, material information revealed in
    communications with A-Plus would have any continuing effect on
    the litigation. They further contended that Rothstein’s limited
    communications with A-Plus did not violate Rule 4.2 because
    “Samsung does not contend that ASCs are officers, directors, or
    managing agents of the corporation to fall within the ‘control
    group’ specified in Rule 4.2(B)(2)” and because its
    communications with A-Plus involved only its percipient
    knowledge, not its own actions or omissions concerning the
    dispute. They also argued that actual knowledge of
    representation is a bright line test for violation of Rule 4.2, that
    “Samsung has not provided any evidence that A-Plus was
    represented,” and that, “[w]ithout actual representation, there
    would be no way to have actual knowledge of representation.”
    Plaintiffs further argued that defendants had consented to
    the communication by refusing to answer discovery on behalf of
    its purported agents and by advising plaintiffs to seek discovery
    directly from ASCs in the Bronson litigation, and that consent
    provides a complete defense to a would-be violation. Finally, they
    argued that defendants had been on notice since 2019 that the
    information that ASCs relayed to customers based on their
    review of defendants’ database was at issue, yet defendants “did
    nothing to eliminate the possibility of ex parte contact with
    ASCs.”
    8
    In a declaration filed with the response, Rothstein stated
    that he had limited communications with A-Plus in October and
    December of 2020. No person with whom he spoke at A-Plus
    indicated that either an attorney represented A-Plus or he should
    speak to an attorney. Rothstein represented that, before he
    communicated with A-Plus, he “had a great body of information
    from Samsung through previous litigation and independent fact
    investigation,” that he had “no notes and no memory that I
    obtained any new material information from my communications
    with A-Plus,” and that his “communications with A-Plus did not
    provide any information other than general information about
    the availability of parts as reported on Samsung’s database.” He
    further noted that the communications with A-Plus took place
    before Cesaletti was added as a plaintiff and before he alleged
    that A-Plus was an agent of defendants. Rothstein also stated
    that, in the Bronson action, Rothstein prepared subpoenas for
    repair facilities and recalled “Samsung’s counsel directing the
    plaintiffs to obtain information from ASCs because that was not
    information Samsung had or was willing to obtain.” His
    “communications with A-Plus took place after Samsung refused
    to respond to discovery in Bronson/Hardin on behalf of its
    agents.”
    Plaintiffs also submitted the declaration of Robert L. Kehr,
    an expert in attorney professional responsibility, in support of the
    response. Kehr opined that Rothstein did not violate Rule 4.2,
    and that there is no proper basis for disqualification even if there
    were a Rule 4.2 violation. Kehr opined that the purpose of Rule
    4.2 (b)(2) is to prevent ex parte contact with employees who
    engaged in acts or conduct for which the employer might be
    liable. Because section 1793.03 imposes liability only on a
    9
    manufacturer, he opined that there is no conduct on the part of
    A-Plus for which defendants might be liable because any liability
    would rest solely on defendants’ own conduct and thus Rule
    4.2(b)(2) does not apply. Kehr further opined that disqualification
    was justified only if there might be a continuing litigation effect,
    i.e., if the lawyer had obtained material information he could use
    to his advantage from an individual who was off limits under
    Rule 4.2. However, defendants had not demonstrated a
    continuing litigation effect or that Rothstein had obtained
    material information.
    On reply, defendants argued that Rule 4.2(b) applies to
    Rothstein’s communications, that they did not consent to
    Rothstein’s communications with A-Plus, and that the Kehr
    declaration should be given no weight. For the first time, they
    also argued that revocation of his pro hac vice admission was
    appropriate because “[c]ourts employ a rebuttable presumption of
    disqualification when the challenged party alone holds the
    information wrongfully obtained.” Defendants cited In re
    Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 
    232 Cal.App.3d 572
    , 596
    (Complex Asbestos) for this proposition. Defendants further
    asserted that Rothstein “continues to hide the specific
    information that A-Plus provided to him during the course of his
    improper communications” and “never discloses to the Court how
    many conversations he had with A-Plus employees, which
    employees he spoke with, when he spoke with them, or what the
    employees told him.”
    Following oral argument, the court issued an order
    granting the motion to revoke Rothstein’s pro hac vice status. The
    court declined to consider the Kehr declaration on the grounds
    that “[l]egal conclusions, even if contained in an expert opinion,
    10
    are improper and inadmissible.” The court concluded that
    Rothstein violated Rule 4.2 because “[w]hen Rothstein called A-
    Plus, Plaintiffs were pursuing a theory of the case based on the
    agency status of the ASCs.” The court rejected the argument that
    its ruling on demurrer that section 1793.03, subdivision (b), “does
    not make manufacturers liable for inaccuracies if an ASC advises
    a customer that a needed part is not available when such parts
    are available” did not “foreclose all possibilities that Samsung
    could be liable for its ASCs conduct.” The court also observed that
    Rothstein contacted A-Plus long before its ruling on defendants’
    demurrer. The court further rejected the arguments that no
    violation had occurred because, at the time of the challenged
    communications, Cesaletti (who had sought repairs from A-Plus)
    was not yet a party, it was not yet pleaded that A-Plus was
    defendants’ agent, and defendants had consented to Rothstein’s
    contact by telling Rothstein to contact ASCs directly in the
    Bronson action.
    The court concluded that revocation of Rothstein’s pro hac
    vice status was warranted. Three factors were relevant to the
    court’s determination: (1) “the extent of information gained by
    Rothstein as a result of the communications is unclear,” which
    led it to apply the Complex Asbestos rebuttable presumption; (2)
    “Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not wish to continue with
    this action and will seek to be dismissed from it” and any
    prejudice to the unnamed clients who will seek to be substituted
    in is “thin”; and (3) that the motion to disqualify was not the
    result of tactical abuse but defendants’ “legitimate concern that
    its reading of the statute may be incorrect, that Rothstein will
    improperly use the statements, and that such statements are
    likely to have a ‘ “continuing effect on future judicial
    11
    proceedings.” ’ [Citation.]” In holding that the Complex Asbestos
    rebuttable presumption applied, the court adopted defendants’
    formulation of the presumption as applying “when the challenged
    party alone holds the information wrongfully obtained.” The court
    concluded that “maintenance of the integrity of the proceedings is
    paramount,” “Plaintiffs will suffer little or no prejudice,” and
    “[t]he prejudice alleged to be suffered by other clients of
    Rothstein is not persuasive.”
    Rothstein filed a petition for writ of mandate, which this
    court denied.6 He also timely appealed.
    DISCUSSION
    Rothstein contends that the trial court erred both in finding
    a violation of Rule 4.2 and, if a violation did occur, in revoking his
    pro hac vice admission. He contends that the court could not find
    a violation of Rule 4.2 without making a dispositive finding that
    A-Plus is an agent of defendants, that the court’s prior ruling
    establishes that defendants could not face liability for the acts or
    omissions of ASCs, and that the communications did not concern
    the acts or omissions of the ASCs. Rothstein asserts that
    defendants repeatedly denied agency and refused to answer
    6 “A summary denial of a writ petition does not establish law of the
    case whether or not that denial is intended to be on the merits or is
    based on some other reason.” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 
    3 Cal.4th 888
    ,
    899.) “When the court denies a writ petition without issuing an
    alternative writ, it does not take jurisdiction over the case; it does not
    give the legal issue full plenary review. A summary denial does not
    decide a ‘cause’ [citation], and should therefore not be given law of the
    case effect.” (Id. at p. 897.)
    12
    discovery on behalf of ASCs in the Bronson action, and therefore
    consented to Rothstein’s communications with them.
    Rothstein further argues that revocation was not an
    appropriate remedy because defendants failed to show that the
    communications with A-Plus would have a continuing effect on
    the litigation. He contends that there should have been no
    burden shifting under Complex Asbestos because: (1) defendants
    failed to identify “the nature of the information and its material
    relationship to the proceeding”; (2) he was not the only person
    with access to the information exchanged in communications
    with Samsung’s witnesses; and (3) “employees of A-Plus, did not
    breach any obligation of confidentiality and were not employed by
    or even very cooperative with Rothstein.” Finally, he argues that
    the court abused its discretion in excluding the Kehr declaration.7
    Defendants argue that the court properly found a violation
    of Rule 4.2 because Rothstein’s communications with A-Plus
    involved matters that “may be” binding on defendants.
    Defendants refute that they invited the communications by
    7 Defendants have moved to strike portions of Rothstein’s reply brief
    because they claim the argument that A-Plus was not a represented
    party was not made below or in Rothstein’s opening brief. However,
    Rothstein argued below in connection with the actual knowledge
    requirement of Rule 4.2 that “Samsung has not shown any evidence
    that A-Plus was represented (either by Samsung’s counsel or
    otherwise)” and “Samsung has not provided any evidence that A-Plus
    was represented.” Further, Rothstein argued in his opening brief:
    “There is nothing to suggest that A-Plus was actually represented or
    told Rothstein it was represented by Samsung’s attorneys related to
    the subject matter of the conversations.” Although we do not disagree
    with defendants that the argument was made in greater depth in the
    reply than any point prior, we deny the motion. We note, however, that
    this argument does not form the basis of our opinion.
    13
    declining to respond to discovery requests on behalf of ASCs in
    Bronson. Defendants also contend that revocation of Rothstein’s
    pro hac vice status was appropriate because the court did find an
    ongoing litigation effect and because the application of the
    Complex Asbestos rebuttable presumption of disqualification was
    appropriate. Finally, they contend that the court properly
    declined to consider the Kehr declaration.
    We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
    excluding the Kehr declaration. Without reaching all of the many
    arguments advanced by the parties on the merits, we also
    conclude that the order revoking Rothstein’s pro hac vice status
    must be reversed.
    1.    The Exclusion of Rothstein’s Expert Evidence
    1.1.   Standard of Review
    “ ‘We apply the abuse of discretion standard when
    reviewing the trial court’s rulings on evidentiary objections.’
    [Citation.] An ‘erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal only
    if “there is a reasonable probability that a result more favorable
    to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of
    the error.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Daimler Trucks North America
    LLC v. Superior Court (2022) 
    80 Cal.App.5th 946
    , 960.) This
    includes a trial court’s exclusion of an expert opinion. (Avivi v.
    Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 
    159 Cal.App.4th 463
    , 467.)
    1.2.   The court did not abuse its discretion in
    disregarding the Kehr declaration.
    The court excluded the Kehr declaration on the ground that
    “[l]egal conclusions, even if contained in an expert opinion, are
    improper and inadmissible.” The court cited several authorities
    14
    for this proposition, including WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v.
    Cooper (2007) 
    154 Cal.App.4th 525
    . Rothstein argues that the
    court erred because expert declarations are routinely admitted in
    cases concerning the revocation of pro hac vice status (see Sheller
    v. Superior Court (2008) 
    158 Cal.App.4th 1697
    , 1703 (Sheller);
    Snider v. Superior Court (2003) 
    113 Cal.App.4th 1187
    , 1196
    (Snider)), as well as in legal malpractice cases.
    In neither Sheller nor Snider was the admissibility of an
    expert opinion challenged or discussed in any depth. Moreover, it
    is unclear why the admission of expert testimony in legal
    malpractice cases is relevant here. “The general rule is that
    expert evidence is required to establish legal malpractice,” unless
    “the alleged malpractice is so utterly egregious and obvious that
    no expert testimony is needed.” (O’Shea v. Lindenberg (2021) 
    64 Cal.App.5th 228
    , 236–237.) This is because “the legal malpractice
    suit is but one variety of negligence action and is governed by the
    general doctrines of pleading and proof prevailing in negligence
    actions” and “questions of fact in a case such as the one at bench
    require expert evidence.” (Lipscomb v. Krause (1978) 
    87 Cal.App.3d 970
    , 975.) Rothstein has not identified, nor are we
    aware of, a general rule requiring expert testimony for a motion
    to disqualify or revoke pro hac vice admission based on a
    violation of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.
    Although “[a]dmissible expert opinion testimony is not
    objectionable just because it embraces the ultimate issue to be
    decided by the trier of fact,” the court correctly observed that “an
    expert may not testify about issues of law or draw legal
    conclusions.” (Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing &
    Wellness Centre, LLC (2013) 
    221 Cal.App.4th 102
    , 122.) Kehr
    drew a legal conclusion as to whether Rothstein violated Rule 4.2
    15
    based on facts he assumed to be true. While we do not dispute
    that the testimony of ethics experts could be useful in cases such
    as this, the court’s decision not to consider the Kehr declaration
    was reasonable under the law and was not an abuse of discretion.
    2.    The Revocation of Rothstein’s Pro Hac Vice Admission
    2.1.   Standard of Review
    “Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5)
    gives courts the power to order a lawyer’s disqualification.” (DCH
    Health Services Corp. v. Waite (2002) 
    95 Cal.App.4th 829
    , 831.)
    “An attorney appearing pro hac vice ‘is subject to the jurisdiction
    of the courts of this state with respect to the law of this state
    governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a
    member of the State Bar of California.’ ” (Sheller, supra, 158
    Cal.App.4th at p. 1716, quoting Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(f).)
    “Given that a California trial court’s inherent power includes the
    authority to disqualify a California attorney, and that revocation
    of an out-of-state attorney’s pro hac vice status is, in effect, a
    disqualification of the out-of-state attorney,” this Division has
    concluded “that a California trial court’s inherent powers include
    the authority to revoke an attorney’s pro hac vice status when
    that attorney has engaged in conduct that would be sufficient to
    disqualify a California attorney.” (Sheller, at p. 1716.)
    “ ‘The authority to disqualify an attorney stems from the
    trial court’s inherent power “[t]o control in furtherance of justice,
    the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in
    any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in
    every matter pertaining thereto.” [Citations.]’ ” (Cal Pak Delivery,
    Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1997) 
    52 Cal.App.4th 1
    , 8.) Our
    Supreme Court set forth the standard of review for a
    16
    disqualification motion as follows: “Generally, a trial court’s
    decision on a disqualification motion is reviewed for abuse of
    discretion. [Citations.] If the trial court resolved disputed factual
    issues, the reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for
    the trial court’s express or implied findings supported by
    substantial evidence. [Citations.] When substantial evidence
    supports the trial court’s factual findings, the appellate court
    reviews the conclusions based on those findings for abuse of
    discretion. [Citation.] However, the trial court’s discretion is
    limited by the applicable legal principles. [Citation.] Thus, where
    there are no material disputed factual issues, the appellate court
    reviews the trial court’s determination as a question of law.
    [Citation.] In any event, a disqualification motion involves
    concerns that justify careful review of the trial court’s exercise of
    discretion.” (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil
    Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 
    20 Cal.4th 1135
    , 1143–1144.) The
    failure of the trial court to follow the law constitutes an abuse of
    discretion as a legal matter. (Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 
    152 Cal.App.4th 1288
    , 1294.)
    2.2.   Rule 4.2
    “ ‘Contact with represented parties is proscribed to
    preserve the attorney-client relationship from an opposing
    attorney’s intrusion and interference.’ [Citation.]” (Snider, supra,
    113 Cal.App.4th at p. 1197.) Rule 4.2 provides in relevant part:
    “(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate
    directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation with
    a person* the lawyer knows* to be represented by another lawyer
    in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other
    lawyer. [¶] (b) In the case of a represented corporation,
    partnership, association, or other private or governmental
    17
    organization, this rule prohibits communications with: [¶] . . . [¶]
    (2) A current employee, member, agent, or other constituent of
    the organization, if the subject of the communication is any act or
    omission of such person* in connection with the matter which
    may be binding upon or imputed to the organization for purposes
    of civil or criminal liability.” The asterisks (*) identify words
    defined in Rule 1.0.1(g-1). Rule 1.0.1(g-1) states: “ ‘[p]erson’ has
    the meaning stated in Evidence Code section 175.” In turn,
    Evidence Code section 175 provides that “ ‘[p]erson’ includes a
    natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership,
    business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or public
    entity.” Rule 1.0.1(f) further provides: “ ‘Knowingly,’ ‘known,’ or
    ‘knows’ means actual knowledge of the fact in question. A
    person’s* knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.”
    It is undisputed that Rothstein had ex parte contacts with
    A-Plus employees on at least two occasions, in October and
    December 2020. However, these facts, in and of themselves, do
    not constitute a violation of Rule 4.2.
    On the record before us, whether the court abused its
    discretion in concluding that Rothstein violated Rule 4.2 raises a
    number of difficult questions. Rothstein argues that the court
    erred in finding a violation of Rule 4.2 because it did not make a
    definitive finding that A-Plus was defendants’ agent. Defendants
    concede on appeal that the court did not resolve this issue, but
    argue that this is irrelevant because “Rule 4.2 does not require a
    conclusive finding that a third party’s acts are ‘binding upon or
    imputed to’ the represented party—only that they ‘may be.’ ”
    (Italics omitted.) While it is not necessary to demonstrate that
    the agent’s act or omission that was the subject of the
    communication is in fact binding on the organization, a plain
    18
    reading of Rule 4.2(b) does not permit the conclusion that “may
    be” extends to whether the person with whom the attorney had
    contact is a current employee, member, agent, or other
    constituent of the organization. Courts are bound to construe the
    rule narrowly. (See Snider, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 1198 [“ ‘a
    rule whose violation could result in disqualification and possible
    disciplinary action should be narrowly construed when it
    impinges upon a lawyer’s duty of zealous representation’ ”].)
    The court correctly observed that Rothstein had taken the
    litigation position—including at the point of the contact with A-
    Plus employees—that ASCs were agents of Samsung. Rothstein’s
    communications with an entity he argued was the agent of
    defendants, which he knew to be represented, raises the
    appearance of impropriety and the court was understandably
    dubious of his conduct, as are we. Rothstein should have sought
    guidance concerning the propriety of his intended actions and, if
    necessary, sought defendants’ consent to contact A-Plus. (See San
    Francisco Unified School Dist. ex rel. Contreras v. First Student,
    Inc. (2013) 
    213 Cal.App.4th 1212
    , 1232, fn. 13 [“California courts
    have held that attorneys should resolve doubts about whether
    communications violate the rule by avoiding suspect
    communications and seeking court guidance. [Citations.] The
    need to seek such guidance particularly arises where . . . ‘bright
    line’ rules . . . [citation], are lacking.”]; see also Snider, supra, 113
    Cal.App.4th at p. 1215 [“where an attorney has reason to believe
    that an employee of a represented organization might be covered
    by rule 2-100 [predecessor to Rule 4.2], that attorney would be
    well advised to either conduct discovery or communicate with
    opposing counsel concerning the employee’s status before
    contacting the employee”].)
    19
    Nevertheless, it was not undisputed that A-Plus was
    defendants’ agent. In their motion to revoke Rothstein’s pro hac
    vice admission, defendants stated that “Samsung denies A-Plus’s
    agency.” Thus, defendants have simultaneously argued that
    Rothstein has violated Rule 4.2 and that A-Plus was not
    defendants’ agent, in which case Rothstein’s conduct—although
    ostensibly improper—could not be a true violation of Rule 4.2.8 It
    is also unclear how it could be established that Rothstein had
    actual knowledge that A-Plus was represented based on an
    agency relationship with a represented organization, where it
    remained undecided whether the agency relationship existed and
    defendants denied the relationship.
    Absent factual determinations that A-Plus was defendants’
    agent or that Rothstein had actual knowledge that A-Plus was
    represented, the court’s conclusion that Rothstein violated Rule
    4.2 seems to be based solely on the appearance of misconduct.
    And while the named plaintiffs in this case apparently wish to be
    dismissed, we are troubled by the possibility that, under a similar
    scenario, the court or a finder of fact could subsequently
    determine that the person contacted was not an agent of the
    8 The court appeared to find that inconsistency in defendants’ position
    was based on “a legitimate concern that its reading of the statute may
    be incorrect” with respect to whether defendants could be liable for the
    acts of its ASCs. However, whether the acts or omissions of ASCs could
    be binding on defendants goes to the second prong of Rule 4.2(b)(2), not
    whether an agency relationship existed. “ ‘The existence of an agency
    relationship is usually a question of fact, unless the evidence is
    susceptible of but a single inference.’ [Citation.] Because the existence
    of agency is generally a question of fact, it logically follows that agency
    must be established with evidence.” (Zimmerman v. Superior Court
    (2013) 
    220 Cal.App.4th 389
    , 401.)
    20
    organization, in which case the disqualified attorney’s clients will
    have been denied the “important right to counsel of one’s
    choosing” for a violation that, in retrospect, did not take place.
    (Complex Asbestos, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 586.) Further, if
    courts dispense with the requirement that the moving party
    make a factual showing of a violation, we are concerned that the
    use of disqualification motions for tactical advantage will only
    increase. (See Gregori v. Bank of America (1989) 
    207 Cal.App.3d 291
    , 301 (Gregori) [“it is widely understood by judges that
    ‘attorneys now commonly use disqualification motions for purely
    strategic purposes’ ”].)
    Although we wish to acknowledge these concerns, we need
    not resolve them for purposes of this appeal. We assume, without
    deciding, that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding a
    violation of Rule 4.2 and proceed to consider whether the court’s
    disqualification of Rothstein was an abuse of discretion. We
    conclude that it was.
    2.3.   The court abused its discretion in granting the
    motion to revoke Rothstein’s pro hac vice
    admission.
    “We do not disqualify a lawyer from representing a client to
    punish the lawyer’s mistakes or even bad behavior. [Citations.]
    The discipline of lawyers in California is a function reserved to
    the State Bar. [Citations.] Rather, disqualification of counsel is a
    prophylactic remedy designed to mitigate the unfair advantage a
    party might otherwise obtain if the lawyer were allowed to
    continue representing the client. [Citation.]” (City of San Diego v.
    Superior Court (2018) 
    30 Cal.App.5th 457
    , 470–471.)
    “ ‘Disqualification motions implicate several important
    interests, among them are the clients’ right to counsel of their
    21
    choice, the attorney’s interest in representing a client, the
    financial burden of replacing a disqualified attorney, and tactical
    abuse that may underlie the motion. [Citation.] The “paramount”
    concern in determining whether counsel should be disqualified is
    “the preservation of public trust in the scrupulous administration
    of justice and the integrity of the bar.” [Citations.] It must be
    remembered, however, that disqualification is a drastic course of
    action that should not be taken simply out of hypersensitivity to
    ethical nuances or the appearance of impropriety.’ [Citation.]”
    (Sheller, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1711.)
    Where there has been a violation of Rule 4.2, a trial judge
    may disqualify the attorney from acting as counsel in an action
    related to the subject of controversy, where the misconduct will
    have a substantial continuing effect on the proceedings before the
    court. (Chronometrics, Inc. v. Sysgen, Inc. (1980) 
    110 Cal.App.3d 597
    , 607.) The court in Chronometrics observed: “We detect a
    common theme in the cases relating to disqualification of
    attorneys by trial courts. If the status or misconduct which is
    urged as a ground for disqualification will have a continuing
    effect on the judicial proceedings which are before the court, it is
    justified in refusing to permit the lawyer to participate in such
    proceeding. . . . If, on the other hand, the court’s purpose is to
    punish a transgression which has no substantial continuing effect
    on the judicial proceedings to occur in the future, neither the
    court’s inherent power to control its proceedings nor Code of Civil
    Procedure section 128 can be stretched to support the
    disqualification.” (Ibid., italics added.)
    Similarly, the court in Gregori stated: “Since the purpose of
    a disqualification order must be prophylactic, not punitive, the
    significant question is whether there exists a genuine likelihood
    22
    that the status or misconduct of the attorney in question will
    affect the outcome of the proceedings before the court. Thus,
    disqualification is proper where, as a result of a prior
    representation or through improper means, there is a reasonable
    probability counsel has obtained information the court believes
    would likely be used advantageously against an adverse party
    during the course of the litigation.” (Gregori, supra, 207
    Cal.App.3d at pp. 308–309; accord, Big Lots Stores, Inc. v.
    Superior Court (2020) 
    57 Cal.App.5th 773
    , 782 [“disqualification
    is a ‘drastic remedy’ that should only be ordered where attorney
    misconduct has a ‘ “substantial continuing effect on future
    judicial proceedings” ’ ”].)
    Even assuming that Rothstein violated Rule 4.2, we
    conclude that the court abused its discretion in holding that the
    Complex Asbestos rebuttable presumption of disqualification
    applied in this case and erred in disqualifying Rothstein in the
    absence of substantial evidence supporting that his misconduct
    would have a substantial continuing effect on the proceedings.
    2.3.1. The court’s application of the Complex Asbestos
    rebuttable presumption was an abuse of
    discretion.
    In Complex Asbestos, a paralegal worked for Brobeck,
    Phleger & Harrison (Brobeck), a law firm that represented
    defendants in asbestos litigation cases. (Complex Asbestos, supra,
    232 Cal.App.3d at p. 580.) The plaintiffs in some of those cases
    were represented by the Harrison firm. (Id. at pp. 582–583.)
    While working for Brobeck, the paralegal acquired “confidential
    attorney-client information, materially related to the cases”
    involving the Harrison firm’s clients, then left Brobeck to work,
    eventually, for the Harrison firm. (Id. at pp. 597–598.)
    23
    Specifically, the paralegal looked at “Settlement Evaluation and
    Authority Request” forms concerning the Harrison firm’s cases,
    which were “brief summaries of the information and issues used
    by the defense attorneys and their clients to evaluate each
    plaintiff’s case.” (Id. at pp. 580, 597.) Certain defendants in the
    asbestos litigation filed a motion to disqualify the Harrison firm,
    which the court granted. (Id. at pp. 583–585.)
    In affirming the order, the Court of Appeal established a
    methodology “for disqualification based on nonlawyer employee
    conflicts of interest.” (Complex Asbestos, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at
    p. 596.) “The party seeking disqualification must show that its
    present or past attorney’s former employee possesses confidential
    attorney-client information materially related to the proceedings
    before the court. The party should not be required to disclose the
    actual information contended to be confidential. However, the
    court should be provided with the nature of the information and
    its material relationship to the proceeding. [Citation.] [¶] Once
    this showing has been made, a rebuttable presumption arises
    that the information has been used or disclosed in the current
    employment. The presumption is a rule by necessity because the
    party seeking disqualification will be at a loss to prove what is
    known by the adversary’s attorneys and legal staff. [Citation.] To
    rebut the presumption, the challenged attorney has the burden of
    showing . . . that the employee has not had and will not have any
    involvement with the litigation, or any communication with
    attorneys or co[-]employees concerning the litigation, that would
    support a reasonable inference that the information has been
    used or disclosed. If the challenged attorney fails to make this
    showing, then the court may disqualify the attorney and law
    firm.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
    24
    Unlike Complex Asbestos, this is not a case in which a non-
    attorney employee of a law firm, who had access to (and admitted
    to accessing) confidential information concerning that firm’s
    analyses of an opposing firm’s clients and cases, later gained
    employment with the opposing law firm. Assuming that the
    presumption can apply outside the circumstances of a non-
    attorney employee with access to confidential information moving
    from one firm to another (a scenario that bears no resemblance to
    the circumstances of this case), there is no evidence indicating
    that A-Plus ever had access to any confidential attorney-client
    information from defendants or that any of the communications
    between Rothstein and A-Plus concerned information subject to
    the attorney-client privilege. Thus, there does not appear to be
    any legal basis to apply the presumption from Complex Asbestos
    in this case.9
    Snider, supra, 
    113 Cal.App.4th 1187
     is also instructive. In
    Snider, the trial court disqualified the attorney of the defendant
    in the action, Dale Larabee, following Larabee’s contacts with two
    employees of Quantum Productions, Inc. (Quantum), the
    9 For the same reasons, Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court
    (1994) 
    24 Cal.App.4th 1067
    , which the court also cited, does not
    support the application of the presumption to this case. Shadow Traffic
    involved a motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel based on its
    contacts with an expert who previously met with plaintiff’s counsel to
    discuss retention, obtained information about plaintiff’s potential
    damages theories, and offered feedback on plaintiff’s strategies. (Id. at
    pp. 1071–1073.) The Court of Appeal concluded that there was
    “substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that in that
    one meeting, [plaintiff’s counsel] disclosed confidential information to
    [the expert]” and thus the rebuttable presumption applied. (Id. at
    p. 1085.)
    25
    defendant’s former employer. (Id. at p. 1192.) The Court of
    Appeal granted the defendant’s petition for writ of mandate and
    vacated the court’s order. (Id. at pp. 1197, 1216.) It concluded
    that there was no evidence presented that the employees Larabee
    contacted “had authority from Quantum to speak concerning this
    dispute or any other matter, or that their actions could bind or be
    imputed to Quantum concerning the subject matter of this
    litigation.” (Id. at p. 1211.) The court further found that “there
    was no evidence presented that Larabee actually violated the
    attorney-client privilege” where “[t]here was no evidence
    presented that Quantum’s counsel had any communications with
    [the employees] prior to Larabee’s contacts and attempted
    contacts with them.” (Ibid.) Although one of the employees stated
    in a declaration that the attorney “asked her ‘many more
    questions I cannot remember right now,’ ” the court rejected the
    argument that this was sufficient to establish that “there might
    have been confidential information disclosed.” (Id. at p. 1212.)
    “[T]his is mere speculation that cannot support a finding of a
    violation of rule 2-100, or disqualification of counsel.” (Ibid.)
    Accordingly, it is not appropriate to assume that
    confidential information was disclosed simply because the A-Plus
    employees contacted cannot remember the full details of their
    communications with Rothstein. (Accord, Complex Asbestos,
    supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 596, fn. 13 [“[S]howing merely
    potential access to confidences without actual exposure is
    insufficient. The threat to confidentiality must be real, not
    hypothetical.”].) Here, as in Snider, there was no evidence
    presented that counsel for defendants ever spoke with A-Plus or
    its employees prior to Rothstein’s contacts with them.
    26
    Considering that defendants deny the existence of an agency
    relationship, such contact seems unlikely.
    The trial court’s “discretion is ‘ “subject to the limitations of
    the legal principles governing the subject of its action, and
    subject to reversal on appeal where no reasonable basis for the
    action is shown. [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Snider, supra, 113
    Cal.App.4th at p. 1197.) Further, “ ‘[i]t is axiomatic that cases are
    not authority for propositions not considered.’ [Citation.]” (People
    v. Avila (2006) 
    38 Cal.4th 491
    , 566.) The court stated that
    Complex Asbestos stands for the proposition that “[c]ourts employ
    a rebuttable presumption of disqualification when the challenged
    party alone holds the information wrongfully obtained”10 and that
    “ ‘[t]he presumption is a rule by necessity because the party
    seeking disqualification will be at a loss to prove what is known
    by the adversary’s attorneys and legal staff.’ ” As established
    above, the holding of Complex Asbestos does not sweep so broadly.
    We see no basis to significantly expand the application of the
    rebuttable presumption when “the thrust of [Complex Asbestos] is
    to implement the important public policy of protecting against
    the disclosure of confidential information and the potential
    exploitation of such information by an adversary.” (Shadow
    Traffic Network v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at
    p. 1085.) While there was a hypothetical risk of disclosure of
    confidential information in this case, there was no showing that
    A-Plus was ever actually exposed to attorney-client confidential
    10 We note that, although they did not remember many details of their
    conversations with Rothstein, the A-Plus employees did recall and
    were able to provide information about the subject matter of the
    discussions.
    27
    information, nor did the court ever make such a finding. Thus,
    the court’s reliance on the rebuttable presumption was not
    supported by the relevant law and was an abuse of discretion.
    Our conclusion is bolstered by the fact that courts have
    declined to apply the rebuttable presumption where the party
    moving for disqualification continued to have access to the person
    or entity that potentially disclosed confidential information. In
    Collins v. State of California (2004) 
    121 Cal.App.4th 1112
    , 1117–
    1118, counsel for defendant discussed the details of the case with
    an expert, who agreed to act as a consultant. The following year,
    the expert agreed to be an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the
    same case, having apparently forgotten about his consultancy
    with defendant. (Id. at pp. 1118–1119.) Although plaintiffs’
    counsel stated that the expert had never disclosed his
    consultancy, the trial court granted a motion disqualifying the
    expert and plaintiff’s attorney. (Id. at pp. 1120–1121.) The Court
    of Appeal concluded that, even though substantial evidence
    supported the trial court’s conclusion that confidential attorney-
    work-product information was exchanged with the expert (id. at
    p. 1128), the rebuttable presumption did not apply because “[a]t
    all times, the expert witness . . . remained a consultant for
    [defendant’s] counsel” and thus “[t]he most important source of
    the information from which to ascertain whether [the expert] had
    passed on any confidential information . . . thus remained in
    [defendant’s] hands.” (Id. at p. 1129.) It observed that “[w]hen the
    expert has gone to the other side and is no longer available to the
    side that originally retained him, the shifting of the burden of
    proof makes eminent sense,” but where the expert was still
    available to the party that originally retained him, “the normal
    burdens of proof, wherein the party moving for relief must
    28
    establish its right to it, is appropriate.” (Ibid.; accord,
    Shandralina G. v. Homonchuk (2007) 
    147 Cal.App.4th 395
    , 413
    [rejecting application of rebuttable presumption where there was
    no evidence that defendant’s confidential medical consultant, who
    later spoke with plaintiff’s attorney, “was legally unavailable to
    [defendant] as a source for evidence of what confidential
    information” had been disclosed].)
    Thus, even if we assumed A-Plus had access to confidential
    attorney-client information, there is no evidence in the record to
    support that A-Plus or its employees had “gone to the other side”
    or were legally unavailable to defendants. Rather, the
    declarations from A-Plus employees state that A-Plus remains an
    authorized service center and thus is affiliated with Samsung in
    some manner. Its employees also provided defendants’ attorneys
    with declarations concerning the subject of their discussions with
    Rothstein. This further supports that the rebuttable presumption
    did not apply in this case as a matter of law. (See Shandralina G.
    v. Homonchuk, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 414 [“Because the
    impossibilities underlying . . . [the] rebuttable presumptions
    (applicable when former employees have joined the legal staff of
    the challenged attorney) are absent [citation], the reasons for the
    presumption are not present.”].)
    2.3.2. Substantial evidence does not support that
    there is reasonable likelihood of a substantial
    continuing effect on the proceedings.
    In the absence of an applicable presumption, the court was
    required to conclude, based on the evidence, that there was a
    “reasonable probability” that Rothstein “wrongfully acquired an
    unfair advantage that undermines the integrity of the judicial
    process and will have a continuing effect on the proceedings
    29
    before the court” before revoking his pro hac vice admission.
    (Gregori, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at pp. 300, 308–309.) The burden
    of making this showing was on defendants as the parties seeking
    disqualification. (Collins v. State of California, supra, 121
    Cal.App.4th at p. 1129.) “ ‘Even under [the abuse of discretion]
    standard, there is still a substantial evidence component. We
    defer to the trial court’s factual findings so long as they are
    supported by substantial evidence, and determine whether,
    under those facts, the court abused its discretion.’ [Citation.]”
    (McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (2017) 
    10 Cal.App.5th 1083
    , 1121 (McDermott).)
    We do not agree with defendants that the court’s
    observations that Rothstein sought information to support his
    allegations and that such information could hypothetically be
    used against defendants in this litigation or future litigation
    involving other plaintiffs constituted a finding that there was
    substantial evidence that Rothstein improperly obtained
    information that was reasonably likely to have a continuing
    impact on the proceedings. Because the order establishes that the
    court erroneously relied on the rebuttable presumption in
    revoking Rothstein’s pro hac vice status, we will not imply that it
    made the required finding of a substantial continuing effect in
    the alternative. “A discretionary order based on the application of
    improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise
    of informed discretion and is subject to reversal even though
    there may be substantial evidence to support that order.
    [Citations.]” (F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 
    194 Cal.App.4th 1
    , 26; accord,
    Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 
    39 Cal.App.4th 1379
    , 1384 [“When the record clearly demonstrates
    30
    what the trial court did, we will not presume it did something
    different.”].)
    Regardless, on the record before us, we do not find
    substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Rothstein
    obtained an unfair litigation advantage that was reasonably
    likely to have a substantial ongoing effect on the litigation, such
    that the drastic remedy of disqualification was appropriate.
    Rothstein represented that his communications were
    “confirmatory” in nature and “did not provide any information
    other than general information about the availability of parts as
    reported on Samsung’s database.” The declarations of A-Plus’s
    employees support that he asked about the availability of parts
    on the Samsung database. Defendants do not contend that this
    was confidential or privileged information of the kind the rule is
    intended to protect. (See La Jolla Cove Motel & Hotel
    Apartments, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 
    121 Cal.App.4th 773
    ,
    777 [court correctly denied disqualification motion where there
    was “no evidence that [offending lawyers] obtained any
    confidential information that could give their clients an unfair
    advantage or impact upon the fairness of the trial or integrity of
    the judicial system”]; see also Snider, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at
    p. 1197.) Although defendants and the court placed great weight
    on the fact that the A-Plus employees could not recall the full
    details of what they disclosed to Rothstein, we are not permitted
    to assume that the disclosures were significant or confidential in
    nature or would have a substantial continuing effect on the
    litigation absent evidence to that effect. As discussed above,
    “mere speculation . . . cannot support . . . disqualification of
    counsel.” (Snider, at p. 1212; see also Castro v. Los Angeles
    County Bd. of Supervisors (1991) 
    232 Cal.App.3d 1432
    , 1442
    31
    [“Speculative contentions of conflict of interest cannot justify
    disqualification of counsel.”].)
    Defendants argued that “any information Mr. Rothstein
    gained from these queries cannot be unlearned and pose an
    ongoing threat to Samsung’s position in this litigation,” but failed
    to articulate with any specificity or reference to evidence what
    substantial continuing effect Rothstein’s understanding of the
    availability or unavailability of replacement parts may have on
    future proceedings, or how this would provide Rothstein with an
    unfair advantage. To the extent any information Rothstein
    obtained from A-Plus about the availability of parts was
    inaccurate, there is no basis to believe A-Plus’s statements would
    be binding on defendants in future proceedings. The court
    previously remarked that section 1793.03, subdivision (b), “does
    not make manufacturers liable for inaccuracies if an ASC advises
    a customer that a needed part is not available when such parts
    are available.”
    McDermott, supra, 
    10 Cal.App.5th 1083
    , on which the court
    relied, does not compel a different conclusion. In McDermott, the
    trial court disqualified defendants’ counsel, Gibson, Dunn &
    Crutcher LLP (Gibson Dunn), because it failed to recognize the
    potentially privileged nature of an e-mail and used the e-mail
    over an objection that it was inadvertently disclosed. The Court
    of Appeal first concluded that substantial evidence supported the
    trial court’s ruling that there was no waiver of privilege. (Id. at
    pp. 1102–1106.) With respect to disqualification, the court
    observed: “ ‘ “ ‘[I]n an appropriate case, disqualification might be
    justified if an attorney inadvertently receives confidential
    materials and fails to conduct himself or herself in [accordance
    32
    with his or her State Fund[11] duties], assuming other factors
    compel disqualification.’ ” ’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1120.) It
    concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
    disqualifying Gibson Dunn where it produced the inadvertently
    disclosed email in response to a subpoena, refused to return the
    email and denied that it was privileged, “further reviewed and
    analyzed the e-mail to determine its relevance to the claims and
    defenses in” other actions, “formulated deposition questions
    based on the e-mail’s content,” “deposed [two individuals] about
    the e-mail while reading portions of it into the record,” “identified
    and quoted the e-mail in its interrogatory responses that
    described evidence supporting Defendants’ defenses, produced
    the e-mail in discovery, and lodged a copy with the trial court in
    opposition to the privilege motion.” (Id. at p. 1122.) The court in
    McDermott concluded “this evidence shows Gibson Dunn thought
    it could use the e-mail to Defendants’ advantage in opposing [the
    plaintiff’s] claims” and “constitutes substantial evidence
    supporting the trial court’s finding disqualification was necessary
    to prevent future prejudice or harm.” (Ibid.) The court further
    observed that “[Clark v. Superior Court (2011) 
    196 Cal.App.4th 37
    ] established that an attorney who knowingly uses
    inadvertently disclosed, privileged materials to depose witnesses
    may affect the outcome of the lawsuit and therefore justifies a
    trial court’s exercise of its discretion to disqualify the attorney.”
    (Ibid.) Thus, the McDermott court’s conclusion that
    11 State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 
    70 Cal.App.4th 644
    .
    “State Fund is the seminal California decision defining a lawyer’s
    ethical obligations upon receiving another party’s attorney-client
    privileged materials.” (McDermott, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1106.)
    33
    disqualification was appropriate relied in large part on the fact
    that the email obtained by Gibson Dunn contained inadvertently
    disclosed, privileged information. No such showing was made in
    this case.
    Although the court acknowledged that the purpose of
    disqualification motions is not to punish counsel, it also held that
    disqualification was appropriate, in part, because “it is apparent
    that Rothstein sought information to be used in this case to
    support the allegations of the SAC.” However, “it is one thing to
    say [Rothstein’s] conduct was unprofessional and showed bad
    judgment and quite another to say . . . that it warrants his
    disqualification.” (Gregori, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 309;
    accord, Oaks Management Corporation v. Superior Court (2006)
    
    145 Cal.App.4th 453
    , 471 [appearance of impropriety is not a
    sufficient ground to disqualify an attorney in California].) We
    conclude that the standard for disqualification has not been met.
    34
    DISPOSITION
    The order granting defendants’ motion to revoke
    Rothstein’s pro hac vice admission is reversed. Rothstein shall
    recover his costs on appeal.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    LAVIN, Acting. P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    EGERTON, J.
    ADAMS, J.
    35
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B324148

Filed Date: 12/20/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2023