Glass v. DOCUSIGN, INC.

Background

Todd Glass filed this lawsuit concerning alleged data-privacy and cybersecurity vulnerabilities in DocuSign, Inc.’s electronic-signature services. He alleges that, on February 13, 2023, DocuSign violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Stored Communications Act when third-party hackers allegedly hijacked DocuSign’s system and accessed his private communications and documents.

Sherry S. Hamilton and Kevin A. Adams, along with Adams’s firm, Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP, represented Glass. Hamilton and Adams moved for permission to withdraw. They asserted that communications with Glass had become strained and that his conduct made it unreasonably difficult to represent him effectively. The record also showed that the attorneys believed the complaint needed substantial revision by lawyers with privacy and cybersecurity expertise.

Glass opposed withdrawal. He argued, among other things, that his attorneys should continue representing him through discovery and the rest of the case. He also stated that he had identified an outside legal resource that could help revise the complaint, but the court found that he had not shown that he had retained substitute counsel or that an amended complaint was ready.

The case was still at an early stage, and DocuSign had not been served. The court had previously denied Glass’s request for more time to serve the complaint and had ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve DocuSign. The court later extended the deadlines connected to that order so Glass could seek new counsel or prepare to proceed without a lawyer.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the Northern District of California’s rule governing withdrawal of counsel and considered four factors: the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and the extent of any delay.

The court found that Hamilton and Adams had provided reasonable advance notice of their intent to withdraw. It also found that the reasons for withdrawal supported permission to withdraw because the attorneys could not effectively proceed without timely communication from Glass, an amended complaint, and counsel with the needed privacy and cybersecurity expertise. The court further found that a serious breakdown in trust had occurred.

The court concluded that withdrawal would not significantly prejudice DocuSign because the case was in its infancy and DocuSign had not been served. It also found that Glass would have time to seek new counsel or proceed without a lawyer, and that keeping the current attorneys in the case would not solve the problems delaying the litigation.

Ruling

The court granted Hamilton’s and Adams’s motions to withdraw. The withdrawal would become effective after Hamilton and Adams filed under seal the materials they had submitted for private court review. The court found good cause to seal those materials because they had been reviewed privately to protect attorney-client communications, and it required filing under seal by August 18, 2023.

The court also found good cause to keep the July 18, 2023 hearing under seal, except for access by counsel and Glass as specified in the order. The clerk was directed to terminate Hamilton, Adams, and Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP as Glass’s counsel after the sealed materials were filed. The attorneys were not required to represent Glass at the scheduled order-to-show-cause hearing, although they could be required to respond to orders or notices directed to them before that matter was resolved.

The order addressed counsel’s withdrawal and related sealing requirements only. It did not decide the merits of Glass’s claims against DocuSign.