HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
This case is before the Court on Defendant's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's attorney of record.
In this diversity action, removed to federal court by Defendant Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank"), Plaintiff Evegeniy Ardemasov seeks to recover damages allegedly incurred due to the actions of Citibank's alleged agent, Mortgage Information Services, Inc. ("MIS"). According to Plaintiff, on April 6, 2012, in conjunction with Plaintiff's application for a loan with Citibank to refinance a Connecticut property, MIS sent Plaintiff's then current lender, Greenwich Bank and Trust ("Greenwich Bank"), a request for pay-off information on Plaintiff's then $3.5 million construction loan with Greenwich Bank. Thereafter, Greenwich Bank cancelled that construction loan and rejected Plaintiff's pending application for permanent financing (i.e., a term loan) in the amount of $4.5 million. Doc. 1-1 ("Verified Complaint"), p. 2-4 (Factual Allegations, ¶¶ 1-19). See also Doc. 14-1, ¶ 6 ("timeline of the events" by Plaintiff's counsel).
Factually, Plaintiff alleges that in April of 2011 Greenwich Bank "provided a revolving construction line of credit" to him for the construction and improvement of his home at 3 Hekma Road, Greenwich, Connecticut. Doc. 1-1, p. 3, ¶ 4. Upon completion of construction on that property, Greenwich agreed to provide Plaintiff with "permanent financing for $5.5 million at [a] 4% annual rate" of interest. Id., ¶ 5. In December of 2011, Plaintiff obtained a certificate of occupancy for said property. Id., ¶ 6. In early 2012, Plaintiff applied to refinance the same property with Greenwich Bank and also with Citibank.
Plaintiff alleges that on June 19, 2013, Citibank denied his mortgage application and thereafter provided three "completely contradicting explanations as to why Plaintiff's application for mortgage was denied." Doc. 13, p. 2. In addition, Citibank allegedly never advised or admitted that it had contacted Greenwich Bank to prevent it from processing Plaintiff's mortgage and issuing additional amounts under the personal line of credit. Id. According to Plaintiff, Citibank did, however, allegedly "admit[] that it was never willing or able to provide the financing [requested] to Plaintiff." Doc. 1-1, p. 4, ¶ 17.
In sum, Plaintiff asserts that Citibank "secretly engaged in unprofessional, illegal and blatantly unauthorized conduct.... on
Plaintiff commenced this action in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, on or about October 3, 2012. Doc. 1-1 ("Verified Complaint"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), Citibank removed Plaintiff's action to this federal district court on November 6, 2012, on the basis of diversity of citizenship subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Substantively, Plaintiff's Complaint contains five causes of action against Citibank: (1) negligence with respect to Citibank's processing of his loan application by providing unauthorized instructions to Greenwich Bank; (2) intentional interference with Plaintiff's business relations with Greenwich Bank; (3) negligent interference with contract in "fail[ing] to take ordinary precautions to avoid interfering with Plaintiff's contractual relations with Greenwich Bank and to avoid causing injury to Plaintiff as a result," (4) violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110a et seq., through "intentional and knowing" and "deceptive" unfair business acts; and (5) fraudulent concealment of Citibank's actions on April 6, 2012, in contacting Greenwich Bank and requesting it "to close down Plaintiff's revolving line of credit and to stop processing a permanent financing application." Doc. 1-1, p. 2-9.
Pending before the Court is Citibank's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, Albert
As Citibank's counsel Weissman summarized in his May 14, 2013 letter to this Court:
Doc. 12, p. 1-2.
According to Citibank, Feinstein was "the sole person, by his own admission, who had the interactions with Defendants that he claims show that `Citibank acted negligently, if not outright fraudulently, by misleading Plaintiff about the status of his loan, by providing untrue updates and giving three (3) completely contradictory explanations as to why Plaintiff's application for a mortgage was denied....'" Doc. 15, p. 2 (citing Plaintiff's Opposition [Doc. 13], p. 2).
At the parties' Rule 26(f) conference in February of 2013, Citibank's counsel "informed Plaintiff's counsel that Citibank would need to depose Mr. Feinstein in this action."
Later on February 15, 2013, Weissman sent a reply email to Feinstein, itemizing "eight statements" Feinstein had made "that formed the basis for Citibank's conclusion that Mr. Feinstein would be called as a witness on Plaintiff's behalf." See Doc. 12-2, p. 1 (quoting an email Feinstein sent to Weissman, dated November 9, 2012, Doc. 14-1, p. 1-2 (¶¶ 7-14)). Weissman characterized Feinstein as describing the events in the list as "material" and then queried: "Is it your contention that these events are not material or relevant?" Doc. 12-2, p. 1. Weissman then offered, "If you are willing to stipulate any of these events are not material, please advise us and we can reconsider our position" on disqualification. Id. Weissman closed by once again citing Local Rule 83.13 and WhitServe, LLC v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., insisting that "[w]e are not seeking to harrass [sic] you or your client, but to insure that our client is afforded a fair trial in accordance with the local rules." Id.
Later that same day, Weissman again emailed Feinstein, urging, "Let's try this more simply. Will you stipulate that you will not be giving testimony in this case?" Doc. 13-3, p. 1.
Apparently displeased by Weissman's request that he stipulate not to testify, Feinstein replied by labeling Weissman's request "improper and unethical under the
No such agreement was reached. Weissman's brief reply was "Sounds like we will need to address [this] with the court." Id.
According to Feinstein, negotiations regarding settlement of the case then ensued between the parties from February 15 to May 6, 2013. Id., p. 3. During that time, no further mention was made of Feinstein's disqualification. Id.
On May 6, 2013, settlement not having been reached between the parties, the issue of Feinstein's disqualification re-emerged. On that date, Citibank's counsel Scott Kaiser, also of Weissman's law firm, Bryan Cave LLP, sent an email to Feinstein, reminding him, "you are a fact witness in the Ardemasov v. Citibank litigation" and "[a]ccordingly, we are going to serve a subpoena to take your deposition." Doc. 12-3, p. 1. Kaiser concluded by instructing, "Please let us know whether you will accept service of this subpoena." Id.
On May 10, 2013, Feinstein sent a letter to the Court, "seeking the court's involvement" because, inter alia, Citibank "continues harassing Plaintiff with threats of Plaintiff's counsel'[s] disqualification and subpoenas for deposition." Doc. 11-1, p. 1. Feinstein argued that "Defendant's continuous harassment of Plaintiff's counsel and improper demand to withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel prevents Plaintiff from finalizing the Rule 26(f) Report necessary to enter the Scheduling Order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16 and to commence the formal discovery." Id., p. 3.
As described supra, Weissman then sent the Court the May 14, 2013 letter, detailing the facts giving rise to the disqualification issue. Doc. 12. The case was at an impasse, with the parties deadlocked on the issue of whether Feinstein should withdraw his representation of Ardemasov. In the absence of any further submissions on the subject by Citibank, the Court construes Weissman's May 14, 2013 letter as a motion to disqualify Feinstein as Plaintiff's counsel in this action. This Ruling resolves that motion.
The Second Circuit has determined that "[a] district court has `substantial latitude' to require disqualification." United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72, 104 (2d Cir.2000) (citing, inter alia, Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 163, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988)), cert denied sub nom., Lysaght v. United States, 531 U.S. 1143, 121 S.Ct. 1077, 148 L.Ed.2d 954 (2001). Accord Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 468 F.Supp.2d 359, 364 (D.Conn.2007). This discretionary authority to disqualify an attorney "derives from [federal courts'] inherent power to preserve the integrity of the adversary process." Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream, 409 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "In exercising this power, [courts] attempt[] to balance a
In general, the Second Circuit "disfavors motions to disqualify because of the potentially adverse effect on a client's right to engage counsel of his or her choosing, and because such motions are often made for tactical reasons."
Specifically, with respect to an attorney testifying as a witness in his or her client's pending litigation, courts within this Circuit "have required more than a showing that the testimony is relevant, material and necessary" to disqualify said counsel from representation. Seth Co. Inc. v. U.S.C.I.R., No. 3:01CV01584(PCD), 2002 WL 31959105, at *1 (D.Conn. Nov. 26, 2002) (citation omitted). Rather, a "high standard of proof" is required, Evans, 715 F.2d at 791; and necessity for counsel to testify is determined by "taking into account factors such as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony, and availability of other evidence," Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Mendon Leasing Corp., No. 01 Civ. 9054, 2002 WL 31387484, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts have held that "[i]n addition, the testimony must be prejudicial to the testifying attorney's client." Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The "projected testimony of a lawyer or firm member must be sufficiently adverse to the factual assertions or account of events offered on behalf of the client, such that the bar or the client might have an interest in the lawyer's independence in discrediting that testimony." Lamborn v. Dittmer, 873 F.2d 522, 531 (2d Cir.1989).
Citibank requests that this Court disqualify Feinstein from representing Plaintiff pursuant to this District's Local Rule 83.13 of Civil Procedure, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not accept employment in contemplated or pending litigation if he or she knows or it is obvious that he or she or a lawyer in the same firm ought to be called as a witness." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.13(a) (emphasis added). There are, however, three enumerated exceptions in which a lawyer who "ought to be called as a witness" may represent the client and still testify: if the testimony will relate solely to — (1) "an uncontested matter;" (2) "a matter of formality;"
Furthermore, a lawyer must withdraw from representing a client in a trial if he or she "learns or it is obvious that he or she or a lawyer in the same firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of the client." Id. 83.13(b). At that point, the lawyer "shall withdraw" and the lawyer's "law firm shall not continue representation in the trial." Id.
Lastly, paragraph two of subsection (b) addresses when a lawyer "learns or it is obvious that he or she or a lawyer in the same firm may be called as a witness other than on behalf of his or her client." Id. (emphasis added). In those circumstances, "the lawyer may continue the representation until it is apparent that his or her testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client." Id.
The Second Circuit has interpreted the mandatory language of "ought to be called as a witness" to suggest that courts bear the ultimate responsibility to protect the integrity of the judicial process by disqualifying counsel who "ought to testify" and, in so doing, would jeopardize that integrity. See, e.g. J.P. Foley & Co. v. Vanderbilt, 523 F.2d 1357, 1359 (2d Cir.1975) (test for disqualifying counsel under the disciplinary rule is not whether the attorney will be called as a witness, or whether the plaintiff presently plans to call the attorney, but whether the attorney "ought to be called"); MacArthur v. Bank of New York, 524 F.Supp. 1205, 1209 (S.D.N.Y.1981) ("The mandatory nature of [such language] requires that the court be able to disqualify counsel sua sponte when the need arises").
Thus, even where neither party's counsel seeks disqualification — whether, for example, due to financial gain in continuing representation or tactical strategy to avoid opposing counsel's testimony — the court "must intervene to ensure that the mandate [of the rule] is followed."
The Second Circuit has held that the "correct test for disqualification of counsel" is a "restrained approach," which "calls for disqualification only upon a finding that the presence of a particular counsel will taint the trial by affecting his or her presentation of a case." Bottaro v. Hatton Associates, 680 F.2d 895, 896 (1982). Consequently, district courts within the Circuit have held that in order for an attorney to be disqualified in that he or she "ought" to testify, the prospective testimony
In support of Citibank's motion, Citibank's counsel, Weissman, presented to the Court a portion of a "timeline" Feinstein prepared, detailing the events which allegedly gave rise to Plaintiff's asserted causes of action. Doc. 14-1 (email from Feinstein to Weissman, dated Nov. 8, 2012). Included in the timeline are various instances during which Feinstein reached out to or interacted with Citibank's agents and executives to obtain information with respect to Citibank's allegedly improper actions relating to his Greenwich Bank loans on April 6, 2012. See Doc. 14 (Affidavit Noah M. Weissman), ¶¶ 2-3; see also, e.g., Doc. 14-1, p. 1 (¶ 8) ("Mrs. Timken [the General Counsel at CitiMortgage] shared with me that Citi did authorize to contact Mr. Ardemasov's bank (Greenwich Bank);" id., p. 2 (¶¶ 11-12) ("On July 5, I sent a letter to Citi's executives Sanjiv Das and Cece Stewart'" and in return received a "letter [that] completely contradicted the timeline and reasons for Citi's actions that were claimed in multiple correspondences from Kathleen Timken and other Citi's executives"); id.,
Citibank, through Weissman, asserts "that Albert Feinstein cannot serve as litigation counsel to Plaintiff Evegeniy Ardemasov because Mr. Feinstein's own statements demonstrate that he will be called as a witness." Doc. 15, p. 2. In support, Weissman asserts that "Feinstein indisputably was the sole person having communications with Greenwich Bank ... regarding whether or not [it] would extend the maturity date on Plaintiff's construction loan and reinstate or continue with Plaintiff's loan application for a term loan." Id. Moreover, Weissman claims that "Feinstein also was the sole person, by his own admission, who had the interactions with Defendant[ ]" that show that Citibank "acted negligently, if not outright fraudulently, by misleading Plaintiff about the status of his loan, by providing untrue updates and giving three (3) completely contradictory explanations as to why Plaintiff's application for a mortgage was denied...." Id. (citing Doc. 13 (Plaintiff's Opposition Brief), at 2).
Weissman accuses Feinstein of posturing about "harassment and intimidation," but refusing to confirm "that he will not appear as a witness at trial." Doc. 15, p. 2. Rather, Weissman asserts, Feinstein "insists on preserving [the] option [to testify] while seeking to preclude any discovery by Citibank on what he would say at trial." Id. Weissman concludes that unless Feinstein stipulates that he will not testify, he should be disqualified from representing Ardemasov in this litigation and must appear for the purpose of having his deposition taken by Citibank. Id.
In support of disqualification, Weissman maintains that although Feinstein denies "any direct knowledge about the events arising on April 6, 2012," the events at issue in this case "do not solely concern events that occurred on or before April 6, 2012, when [MIS] sent the request for pay-off information." Id., p. 3. Rather, Citibank contends that Feinstein was the person who "allegedly spoke to Greenwich Bank about extending his credit line/construction loan beyond the initial maturity date to allow Plaintiff time to pursue an application for a term loan;" "spoke to Greenwich about whether or not Plaintiff intended to cancel his loan application;" and "spoke to Greenwich about whether or not Plaintiff wanted his loan application reinstated or further considered." Id. In addition, Citibank notes that Feinstein conceded in his opposition that he had communications "in the course of representing Plaintiff's interest in connection with Plaintiff's loan application" with Citibank. Id., p. 5 (citing Doc. 13, p. 6).
In sum, Citibank argues that because Feinstein "played an integral role" in the interactions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims, he is a proper witness in this litigation — i.e., he cannot "preclude Citibank from taking discovery from him on [the events at issue] and preserve his option of testifying at trial." Id.
Furthermore, Citibank concludes that because Feinstein will not voluntarily withdraw from representing Ardemasov, the Court must disqualify him pursuant to Local Rule 83.13. Citibank cites MacArthur v. Bank of New York, 524 F.Supp. 1205,
The Court recognizes that in 1986 Connecticut's rules of practice, including DR 5-102(A), were replaced by the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 3.7(a), captioned "Lawyer as witness."
Citibank also cites MacArthur to assert that any "argument that the lawyer's testimony would merely corroborate other testimony... is unavailing" to prevent disqualification of counsel. Doc. 15, p. 5 (quoting MacArthur, 524 F.Supp. at 1208). Rather, "[t]he test is whether the attorney's testimony could be significantly useful to his client; if so, then he ought to be called." Id. (quoting MacArthur, 524 F.Supp. at 1208).
Finally, Citibank finds that Feinstein must be disqualified "to prevent Citibank from being prejudiced by undue credibility" that a jury could afford his testimony at trial. Doc. 15, p. 6 (citing Munk v. Goldome Nat'l Corp., 697 F.Supp. 784, 786 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (disqualifying transactional counsel in circumstances where, if called upon to testify, "opposing counsel could be handicapped in challenging [said counsel's] credibility" because the testifying attorney "also appears as an advocate in the case")).
Before turning to analyze Plaintiff's opposition, the Court notes that there is merit in Citibank's argument that Ardemasov's claims, and perhaps Citibank's defense, do not solely concern events prior to April 6, 2012. Thus, if as Citibank suggests, Feinstein "played a key role" in subsequent events that "control to what extent, if any Plaintiff was harmed by any confusion engendered by the MIS letter" [Doc. 15, p. 3], Feinstein potentially "ought to be called as a witness" within the meaning of Local Rule 83.13(b). He was admittedly involved in various communications with officials of Citibank and Greenwich Bank after April 6, 2012; and the subject of those communications related to facts which may have evidentiary bearing on whether Greenwich Bank terminated his construction loan and/or failed to approve his request for permanent financing as the result of Citibank's
In other words, according to Citibank, Feinstein may potentially possesses knowledge of facts that are relevant, material, and even conceivably necessary in this litigation. Moreover, such facts, if any, would likely be contested and go beyond matters of formality.
On the other hand, Feinstein's possible possession of certain relevant facts, standing alone, is not determinative on the issue of disqualification. In applying the high standard of proof employed in the Second Circuit, the Court must consider whether Feinstein "ought to be called as a witness," D.Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.13 — that is whether Feinstein's testimony would be needed by, or at the least, "significantly helpful," to his client.
Plaintiff opposes the motion to disqualify his counsel, Albert Feinstein, arguing that "[t]here is no basis in law or fact to support Defendant's attempt to deprive [him] of counsel of his choice." Doc. 13, p. 1. He argues that Feinstein "is not a `material witness' since he has no knowledge of" and did not take part "in the events underlying the causes of action in the Complaint." Id. He also points to Defendant's request for Feinstein to "stipulate that [he] will not be giving testimony in this case" as evidence — i.e., a concession by Citibank — that it will not be necessary for Feinstein to testify in order for Plaintiff to present his case. Id. Plaintiff asserts that the motion to disqualify is solely intended "to harass Plaintiff, gain an improper advantage in this litigation, and to coerce [him] into accepting Defendant's low ball settlement offer." Id., p. 2.
With respect to the core facts in this case, Plaintiff asserts that it is "abundantly clear form the Complaint and the documents in Citibank's counsel'[s] possession
With respect to Citibank's alleged tactical harassment, Plaintiff began "harassing Plaintiff's counsel to withdraw from the case" in February of 2013. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff points to the letter dated February 11, 2013 [Doc. 13-1] in which Weissman advised Feinstein that "Citibank intends to depose you as a fact witness in this action." Doc. 13, p. 3.
Plaintiff faults Citibank for not seeking the Court's assistance on the disqualification issue at that time. In that regard, Plaintiff calls the Court's attention to Feinstein's strong suggestion in his email to Weissman on February 15, 2013 "that you [Citibank's counsel] take the disqualification matter up with the judge before ... proceeding] with the Rule 26(f) Report." Doc. 13-2, p. 1. Plaintiff argues that, rather than bringing this dispute to the Court's attention, Weissman continued the controversy by sending Feinstein an email on February 15, 2013 asking him, "Will you stipulate that you will not be giving testimony in this case?" Doc. 13, p. 4; see also Doc. 13-3. Plaintiff alleges that Citibank's counsel's demand that Feinstein make such a stipulation "clearly negates any claim by Defendant that Plaintiff's counsel is the `material witness.'" Doc. 13, p. 5.
Plaintiff notes that between February 15 and May 6, 2013, settlement negotiations ensued without further mention of Feinstein's possible disqualification. Doc. 13, p. 4. Then, only after Plaintiff allegedly rejected Citibank's "low offer," Citibank's counsel emailed Feinstein on May 6, 2013, asserting "You are a fact witness in the Ardemasov v. Citibank litigation" and "[a]ccordingly, we are going to serve a subpoena to take your deposition," id., see also Doc. 13-4, and "[i]f you do not agree to accept service of the subpoena, then we will need to have a process server come to your office."
Lastly, Plaintiff emphasizes that "[t]he courts should act very carefully before disqualifying an attorney and negating the right of a client to be represented by counsel of choice." Id., p. 7 (citing Blakemar Constr., LLC v. CRS Eng., Inc., No. CV040412727S, 2005 WL 647731, at *2 (Conn.Super.Ct. Feb. 10, 2005)). Even if testimony is "relevant," it may not be "strictly necessary," depending on "such factors as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony and availability of other evidence ..." Id. (citing Blakemar Constr., LLC, 2005 WL 647731, at *2). Thus Plaintiff concludes that even if Feinstein were a "material witness," there is no proof that he is "a necessary witness" because "there may be less disruptive means of getting the information that [Citibank] seeks." Doc. 13, p. 7 (quoting Rubis v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co, Civ. No. 3:11-cv-796
The Court recognizes that "[i]n view of their potential for abuse as a tactical device, motions to disqualify opposing counsel are subject to particularly strict scrutiny." Rubis v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 3:11cv796 (WWE), 2012 WL 1288483, at *2 (D.Conn. April 16, 2012) (citing Scantek Medical, Inc. v. Sabella, 693 F.Supp.2d 235, 238 (S.D.N.Y.2008)). Such motions "impinge on a party's right to employ the counsel of its choice" and "inevitably result in delay and added expense." Rubis, 2012 WL 1288483, at *2. For such reasons, "the Second Circuit requires a high standard of proof on the part of the party seeking to disqualify an opposing party's counsel." Id.; see also Evans, 715 F.2d at 791; Scantek Med. Inc., 693 F.Supp.2d at 239 (collecting cases). It thus follows that necessity for counsel to testify is determined by "taking into account factors such as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony, and availability of other evidence." Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2002 WL 31387484, at *2. Counsel's testimony must generally be "significantly useful," MacArthur, 524 F.Supp. at 1208, or "relevant, material and necessary," Seth Co. Inc., 2002 WL 31959105, at *1, to be deemed the basis for disqualification.
At the outset, the Court is mindful of the hardship that Plaintiff would endure should his counsel be disqualified and also the resulting delay that would burden both parties. Plaintiff would have the larger burden and expense of securing new counsel, but both sides would likely suffer delay while the newly acquired counsel became acquainted with the facts and prior proceedings in this case.
In determining whether Plaintiff's counsel, Feinstein, "ought to be called as a witness" in this case, the Court also recognizes that neither counsel has expressed a wish to call Feinstein as a witness.
First, the Court notes that Feinstein has asserted without dispute that he has no direct knowledge of the underlying facts relating to the causes of action that arose on or about April 6, 2012, the date MIS allegedly contacted Greenwich Bank regarding Plaintiffs then construction loan and permanent loan application. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Feinstein is neither a necessary nor significantly useful witness regarding the claims in this action that arose on or before the April 6 date. See, e.g., Doc. 13-2, p. 1 (asserting that "[n]o facts show[ed] that [Feinstein] had any knowledge, let alone any `relevant and material' knowledge about the underlying events"). The Court therefore finds no basis that Feinstein "ought to be called as a witness" regarding those claims.
Second, as to claims that arose in whole or part after April 6, 2012, Citibank's counsel, Noah Weissman, argues that Feinstein possesses, by his own admission, relevant information regarding communications he had with Greenwich Bank after that date. See, e.g., Doc. 14-2 (Jan. 10, 2013 email from Richard Muskus, President of Greenwich Bank, to Feinstein, discussing "the timetable of events and the corresponding circumstances" regarding "Ardemasov"). For example, Greenwich Bank's President Muskus wrote that "[o]n May 29th ... I personally contacted Attorney Feinstein requesting status" [of the construction loan payoff]; and "Feinstein responded thereafter that he was unaware of such a payoff pending from a third party and was surprised to learn that the Bank was not continuing to pursue approval." Id. Furthermore, in June and July of 2012, Citibank allegedly advised Feinstein of three false, contradictory explanations of why Citibank denied Plaintiff's mortgage applications on June 19, 2012. See Doc. 13, p. 2; Doc. 12-2 (quoting Doc. 14-1, email from Feinstein to Weissman, dated November 9, 2012, describing Feinstein's communications to and with various Citibank executives (Desmond Smith, James Dorcely, Kathleen Timken, Sanjiv Das, Cece Stewart) regarding Citibank's rejection of Plaintiff's loan application). From those communications, it appears that Feinstein was Plaintiff's main contact with Citibank after April 6, 2012, in gathering information about Citibank's actions with respect to his loan applications. The facts Feinstein obtained, including discussions and correspondence with Greenwich Bank's and Citibank's executives, may relate to Plaintiff's various claims.
Nonetheless, Citibank has failed to demonstrate that the information Feinstein obtained after April 6, 2012 is peculiarly or exclusively within his possession, as opposed to the possession of those who communicated with him. Citibank has failed to establish that Feinstein's testimony will be necessary or even "significantly useful" at trial. The written communications and status updates of the Greenwich Bank and Citibank executives may be offered into evidence in conjunction with testimony by
Because it is apparent from the documents presented that Citibank's and Greenwich Bank's employees possess direct knowledge of what happened with respect to the processing of Plaintiff's various loans, those employees are integral witnesses through whom Plaintiff may present the required evidence in his case. As Feinstein represents, they are "firsthand" witnesses who can testify to the relevant and material facts in this case, including the actions of Citibank's employees with respect to Plaintiff's various loans.
In addition, many events described in Feinstein's timeline involved his investigative acts, as an attorney on behalf of his client, likely in contemplation of commencing litigation. Where attorneys have obtained facts from others in their capacity as counsel, courts have declined to disqualify them as required to testify. See, e.g., Kempner v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 662 F.Supp. 1271, 1279 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) ("Because [defendant's] attorneys have no first hand knowledge of the forgeries — but, rather, are aware only of what [a witness] told them in their capacity as attorneys — there is no reason that they ought to be called as witnesses in this regard."). One can imagine the chaos that would ensue were counsel routinely disqualified and required to testify regarding investigative facts they compiled in their capacity as counsel in preparation for potential litigation.
In sum, at this time, Citibank has failed to present sufficient evidence that Plaintiff's counsel, Feinstein, "ought to be called as a witness," either for Plaintiff or Citibank in this action. Unlike cases in which counsel are participants in, or are witnesses to, the actual events giving rise to the action, Feinstein is neither the sole, nor a conclusively significant, witness regarding the key facts supporting Plaintiff's claims.
After careful review of the evidence presented, the Court concludes that Defendant Citibank has failed to meet the requisite high standard of proof to show that Plaintiff's counsel, Albert Feinstein, "ought to testify" in these proceedings. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.13(a). Although Feinstein investigated what happened following Citibank's alleged April 6, 2012 instructions to Greenwich Bank, there is no indication that he has firsthand knowledge of, or is the sole witness to, the facts allegedly giving rise to Plaintiff's claims. Granted, after April 6, 2012, Feinstein received relevant communications from Citibank's and Greenwich Bank's employees. However, the facts contained in those statements may be presented by calling their authors, those with firsthand knowledge. Thus, taking into account factors such as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony, and availability of other evidence, there is insufficient evidence at this time to conclude that Feinstein is a necessary witness, Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2002 WL 31387484, at **2-3,
In the totality of circumstances revealed by the present record, the Court DENIES the Defendant's Motion [Doc. 12] to Disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, without prejudice to possible renewal at a later date.
If after discovery or at trial, it becomes clear that Feinstein "ought to testify as a witness on behalf of [his] client" — e.g., because he possesses unknown crucial evidence and/or other witnesses turn out not to be available — he must withdraw his representation of Ardemasov or be subject to disqualification by the Court.
By approaching the case in this manner, the Court follows the precedents of some of the cited cases, where the trial courts were able better to evaluate the necessity of calling an attorney as a witness after depositions and other discovery had been conducted.
With the disqualification issue hereby resolved for the present time, the parties are also ORDERED to comply with their obligations pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1). Namely, counsel are directed to confer on or before
Lastly, in light of the parties' representations regarding prior attempts at settlement, counsel are reminded that they may, if so advised, file a joint motion for referral of this case to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference should they seek to resume said negotiations with assistance.
The foregoing is SO ORDERED.
Whitserve, LLC is, however, factually inapposite to the case in suit in that Feinstein is not indisputably a key fact witness for both sides. Nor is he a business partner or co-member of a limited liability company with Plaintiff Ardemasov in this action. There is thus no confusion as to the separate identities and interests of Plaintiff and his counsel.
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.13(b).
As Weissman points out, Local Rule 83.13 is virtually identical to former Disciplinary Rule 5-102(A) of New York's Code of Professional Responsibility ("DR 5-102(A)"). See, e.g., MacArthur v. Bank of New York, 524 F.Supp. 1205, 1208 (S.D.N.Y.1981). For the current, similar provision, see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR § 1200.0], Rule 3.7(a) ("Lawyer as witness"). Rule 3.7 prevents a lawyer from acting as an "advocate before a tribunal in a matter in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact" with five exceptions. Three of the exceptions mirror those in this District's Local Rule 83.13(a); and two additional exceptions allow the lawyer to remain as an advocate: if the "disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client" or "the testimony is authorized by the tribunal." 22 N.Y. ADC § 1200.0, Rule 3.7(a)(3), (5).
Similarly, in the state of Connecticut, where this Court sits in diversity jurisdiction, Rule 3.7 of Connecticut's Rules of Professional Conduct provides:
