Stencel

Stencel v. Fairchild Corp.

Good Law
174 F. Supp. 2d 1080·2001 WL 1549130
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 28, 200199-10572(GAF)(AWJX)California3,669 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feess, J.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT

I.

INTRODUCTION

The motion before this Court involves efforts by both parties to obtain an expert witness from the same law firm. Some months ago. Plaintiff approached one member of the Knobbe, Manens, Olson & Sear (“KMOB”) firm, Craig Summers, to testify as a patent expert. Mr. Summers tentatively agreed to accept the retention, but ultimately withdrew when he discovered a conflict that would prevent him from testifying against Defendant. Later, Defendant retained a different KMOB partner. Thomas Smegal, from a different office of that firm, to testify as a patent expert. Mr. Smegal accepted the assignment and plans to testify for defendant. Plaintiff objects and now moves this Court to create, in essence, a strict imputed disqualification rule for expert witnesses akin to that which applies to attorneys. Because the issues presented in cases involving alleged conflicts of interest where attorneys testify as witnesses do not raise the same concerns that are present when the conflicts involve prior legal representation, the Court declines Plaintiff’s invitation. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.