Jeremy Witt v. Patrick Ross, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiff Jeremy Witt’s second motion to disqualify defense attorney Gordon Finwall. Applying California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, the Court held that Witt had not shown that Finwall’s testimony would be relevant, material, and unobtainable elsewhere, and warned that future frivolous motions could result in sanctions.

Holdings

1. The motion to disqualify Gordon Finwall was denied because Witt did not demonstrate that Finwall's testimony was relevant, material, and unobtainable elsewhere, and the allegations did not remotely establish that disqualification was required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defense counsel should be disqualified under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a) because he was allegedly a necessary witness concerning disputed events.
2. Whether the facts alleged by Witt established that counsel's testimony was relevant, material, and unobtainable elsewhere.

Disposition

other