Exasperated Texas Judge Warns Lawyers in Recruiter Case Against 'Game Playing'
U.S. magistrate judge Andrew Austin expressed frustration with the defendant's lawyers from DLA Piper, as the parties argue over process rather than the facts of the case.
May 04, 2020 at 12:11 PM
4 minute read
A U.S. magistrate in Texas is urging the lawyers in a legal recruitment lawsuit to start focusing more on the facts of the dispute than dwelling on matters of process, as he suggested that a recent dustup over subpoenas issued to law firms was wasting "a lot of time and money."
The judge, Andrew Austin, expressed frustration about what he called "game playing" in the case, which involves a Texas recruiter's trade secret claims against a former employee named Evan Jowers. Austin, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, on Friday denied Jowers' move to stop his former employer, MWK Recruiting Inc., from sending additional third-party subpoenas to other law firms.
Austin criticized Jowers' lawyers at DLA Piper for the court filing they submitted in their effort to stop MWK from sending out any more subpoenas. The filing had "certified," as required by the court's local rules, that the DLA Piper lawyers had met and conferred with MWK's lawyers in good faith before filing the motion. Reading an email chain during a telephonic hearing Friday, the judge said the certification was a "demonstrably false statement by a licensed attorney."
DLA Piper associate James Bookhout and Marc Katz, managing partner of the firm's Dallas office, apologized for the filing. "I do hear you loud and clear," Bookhout told the judge at one point. Bookhout blamed a "miscommunication" between himself and a senior DLA Piper attorney who had signed the certification.
"Unfortunately I did not see it again before it was filed," Bookhout said. He added: "We absolutely understand your frustration and I do apologize, your honor, for any statement in that certificate of conference that was not 100% accurate."
He said he would never "knowingly approve anything to any court that I did not know to be accurate." Bookhout said a new certification was submitted the next day to clarify the issue.
Austin said that sides in the case "are spending more time fighting about process, as opposed to what the actual facts of the dispute are about—wasting a lot of time and money. And if you want to waste your client's time and money, that's fine. But I'm not going to let you waste the court's time on this case."
Austin's remarks about process came just days after he criticized how the law firm Kirkland & Ellis had responded to a subpoena from MWK. The recruiting firm, which sued Jowers for allegedly breaking a noncompete agreement, sent out subpoenas to firms seeking placement information. The subpoena to Kirkland sought names and payment records that Jowers had made through 2019. Kirkland's resistance to the subpoena drew a rebuke from Austin.
Austin said in an order that he "could not be more disappointed with the manner in which [Kirkland & Ellis] has handled this subpoena." He said a Kirkland lawyer's "petty, technical, overly-argumentative emails are a study in what is wrong with civil discovery in our court system today."
MWK's Robert Kinney told ALM last week that Kirkland's response befuddled him. "We did a ton of work for Kirkland. I don't know why they decided they wanted to screw with us," Kinney said. A handful of firms compiled with MWK's subpoenas, he said. "Why would you not? It's a simple matter of spitting out an accounting report."
The judge on Friday denied Jowers' motion to stop additional subpoenas without prejudice. At the same time, Austin urged the lawyers in the case to turn to the substance of the dispute.
"Let's try to get this case focused on the legal merits of the dispute and not fighting about where documents are and what they might say," Austin said.
|Read more
Rebuke of Kirkland in Recruiter's Federal Suit Raises Questions About Placement Secrecy
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPartner Pay Transparency Is Eroding, Even if 'Black Box' Systems Haven't Caught On
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250