The Pullman Group, LLC v. Bauknight
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-09713
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The Pullman Group v. Bauknight, Judge Failla scheduled a conference about counsel disqualification and sealing privileged communications.
The Pullman Group, LLC, defendants, and Rosenberg, Giger and Perala P.C., whose potential disqualification and handling of the communications were to be discussed at the scheduled conference.
What happened
The Pullman Group, LLC asked to discuss disqualifying Rosenberg, Giger and Perala P.C., defendants’ local counsel, based on communications between David Pullman and John Rosenberg in an earlier related lawsuit. The company said those communications included confidential information and litigation strategies involving contractual issues also raised in this case.
The Pullman Group also asked for permission to submit the communications privately and under seal in support of its anticipated motion. The opinion does not show that the court decided whether the lawyers should be disqualified or whether the documents should be sealed.
In The Pullman Group, LLC v. Bauknight, Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the parties to discuss the anticipated motion and sealing request at a February 8, 2023 conference, allowed defendants—but did not require them—to respond beforehand, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 38.
The detailed version
- The Pullman Group, LLC v. Bauknight · No. 1:22-cv-09713
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 6, 2023
Background
The Pullman Group, LLC sent the court a letter requesting a pre-motion conference before seeking to disqualify Rosenberg, Giger and Perala P.C. from representing defendants. The proposed motion concerned New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.18(c), which addresses a lawyer’s duties to a prospective client when the lawyer received information that could significantly harm that person in the matter. The proposed motion did not seek to disqualify defendants’ main counsel at Nexsen Pruet LLC.
The Pullman Group said that David Pullman, identified as the company’s founder, chairman, and chief executive officer, communicated with John Rosenberg, his partner, and/or associates of Rosenberg’s firm in January and February 2020. According to the letter, those communications concerned contractual provisions involved in an earlier related lawsuit and substantially similar provisions involved in this case. The company said it shared confidential information, potential claims, litigation strategies, multiple emails, telephone communications, and an 11-page litigation statement with supporting exhibits.
Requests Before the Court
The Pullman Group anticipated asking the court to disqualify the local law firm and requested permission to submit the communications privately for the judge’s review and under seal. The letter stated that Rosenberg disagreed with the company’s position that the earlier litigation was substantially related to this case.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it had received the letter concerning the potential disqualification motion. Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the parties to be prepared to discuss both the anticipated disqualification motion and the request to submit the privileged communications privately and under seal at a conference scheduled for February 8, 2023. Defendants could, but were not required to, file a response letter before the conference. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 38.
The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied disqualification, ruled on the sealing request, or decided whether the communications were privileged. This was an order addressing the anticipated motion and conference process rather than the underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.