| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion To Compel Defendant Hanson Bridgett To Produce Documents And To Compel Fred Weil To Answer Questions In Response To Deposition Notice
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC21594100 - August 5, 2025 Hearing date: August 5, 2025 Case number: CGC21594100 Case title: JEFFREY SMITH ET AL VS. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP ET AL Case Number: | | CGC21594100 | Case Title: | | JEFFREY SMITH ET AL VS. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-05 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Defendant Hanson Bridgett To Produce Documents And To Compel Fred Weil To Answer Questions In Response To Deposition Notice | Rulings: | | Matter on Calendar for Tuesday, August 5, 2025, Line 12, PLAINTIFF JEFFREY SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ONTHEGO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ONTHEGO WIRELESS, LLC'S Motion To Compel Defendant Hanson Bridgett To Produce Documents And To Compel Fred Weil To Answer Questions In Response To Deposition Notice.
Disclosure: Judge Van Aken discloses that she serves on the board of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Northern California Chapter. Ragesh K. Tangri has been a board member during the time Judge Van Aken has served, and is the immediate past president of the board. In addition, a current Hanson Bridgett partner, Matthew J. Peck, is a board member. Tentative: Hearing required. The parties should be prepared at hearing to address the following questions: 1. Barakat had dual roles with respect to Smith and OTG: he was an investor in Smith's qui tam actions, and he was billing Smith as a consultant.
As an investor, he can be viewed as a counterparty. His interests might overlap with Smith and OTG but they are separate and it's not reasonable to believe his lawyer necessarily becomes Smith's lawyer. (See e.g. Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (8th Cir. 2009) 553 F.3d 609, 627.) As a consultant, he is Smith's agent and is supposed to be acting in Smith's interests. If Barakat were only acting as a consultant and not as an investor or counterparty, would Hanson Bridgett agree that its work for Barakat creates an attorney-client relationship with Smith?
If not, why and what authorities support its position?
2. What evidence before the court addresses whether Weil was involved in Barakat's negotiation of his investment agreements with Smith and OTG? (In other words, is there evidence that any of Weil's work involved matters where Barakat's interests were not aligned with Smith's”) 3. Was there a period just before Boas became Smith's lawyer where Smith did not have counsel?
4. Is Weil on notice of the fact that Smith believes Weil to be his attorney for purposes of negotiating his qui tam retainer agreements by virtue of the fact that Smith's attorneys, White, James, and Boas, never have any substantive comments about the negotiations?
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, Barakat had common interests with Smith in maximizing OTG's qui tam recovery and held himself out as acting on Smith's behalf and for his benefit. He identified Weil as his subcontractor for work on Smith's behalf. Would denying the relief Smith seeks here create an abuse of fiduciary obligations and an unjustifiable inequality in access to information? (tentative ruling continued in Part 2 of 2) | |