Kannan v. Apple Inc.

Background

Karen Ford had represented Raja Kannan since August 27, 2018. Ford moved to withdraw as Kannan’s attorney, citing California professional-conduct rules. Kannan opposed the motion, arguing that withdrawal would burden him. Apple Inc. stated that it did not oppose the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that an attorney must obtain the court’s permission before withdrawing. In deciding whether to allow withdrawal, the court considers the reasons for the request, possible prejudice to the other parties, harm to the administration of justice, and delay in resolving the case.

The court found that Ford had provided reasonable advance written notice. Ford had informed Kannan of her intention to withdraw and had sent him a copy of the motion before filing it. Kannan did not dispute receiving adequate notice.

The court also found good cause for withdrawal because Kannan had failed to pay fees and costs as agreed. Kannan did not dispute breaching the fee agreement, but argued that he should be able to negotiate a new contingency-fee agreement with Ford. The court rejected that argument, stating that Ford was not required to renegotiate and could refuse to continue working without payment. The court also declined to place responsibility on Ford for Kannan’s claim that Apple’s discovery practices had reduced his ability to pay.

The court found that withdrawal would inconvenience but not prejudice Kannan. There was no trial date, pretrial deadlines were not imminent, fact discovery had closed, and Kannan had known for more than two months that Ford intended to withdraw. Kannan also raised concerns about more than 5,000 pages of documents marked “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” which limited his ability to find replacement counsel. The court nevertheless found Ford’s reasons equally compelling.

Order

The court GRANTED Ford’s motion to withdraw as Kannan’s counsel. It continued the trial-setting conference from February 6 to February 20, 2020, and continued the deadline for dispositive motions to February 27, 2020. Ford was ordered to send Kannan a copy of the order by registered mail by January 13, 2020. Kannan had until February 6, 2020, to obtain new counsel, after which the court would deem him to be proceeding without a lawyer. Ford was ordered to retain the Attorneys’ Eyes Only documents until replacement counsel was secured or Magistrate Judge DeMarchi ordered otherwise.