Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00729-SLR Document 56 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLIRT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ARTHROCARE CORPORATION, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 07-729-SLR
GYRUS MEDICAL, INC., GYRUS )
ENT, L.L.C. and GYRUS ACMI, INC., )
Defendants. g
O R D E R
At Wilmington this 30th day ofJune, 2008, having received a response from
defendants to my order of June 11, 2008;
IT IS ORDERED that, on or before July 10, 2008, defendants shall inform the
court whether they intend to present witnesses at the July 17, 2008 evidentiary hearing.
If they choose not to do so, the motion to disqualify (D.l. 14) shall be denied without
further order.
1. Defendants cite Conley v. Chaffinch, 431 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. Del. 2006), for
the proposition that specific confidential information need not be gained from the
conflicting representation for conflicted counsel to be disqualified. I agree. However, if
we start with the premise that motions to disqualify are not only discretionaryl but
"generalIy disfavored," Q at 495, it is incumbent on a movant to at least make a
"‘The court has inherent power to supervise the professional conduct of
attorneys appearing before it .... This power includes the authority to disqualify an
attorney." Q at 495.

Case 1:07-cv-00729-SLR Document 56 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 2
showing of the kinds of confidential information that would have been disclosed under
the circumstances of record, and how that information would be prejudicial in the
context of the case. Before I deprive a party of the representation of its choosing, I
require more than a conclusory argument that an opportunity existed for the disclosure
of confidential information.
2. Moreover, unlike g (where individual litigants were involved), the parties
to this case are international corporations with international legal representation. The
record indicates that, once the relationship between defendants, Olympus and the
instant lawsuit was discovered, all proprieties were followed by Weil Gotshal.
Therefore, I find that defendants have not "cIearly shown" an appearance of
impropriety. Q;
2

Case 1:07-cv-00729-SLR

Document 56

Filed 06/30/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00729-SLR

Document 56

Filed 06/30/2008

Page 2 of 2