United States District Court, D. Colorado
BENJAMIN RAMSEY, by and through his guardian and next friend, Karla Ramsey, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, COLORADO; SOUTHWEST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, PLLC; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.; SOUTHWEST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, LLC; COLORADO CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, PLLC; NURSE JENNIFER TRIMBLE, in her individual capacity; NURSE DEIMYS VIGIL, LPN, in her individual capacity; TIMOTHY G. MOSER, M.D., in his individual capacity; LINDSEY GEIGER, RN, in her individual capacity; EMILY BARRON, RN, in her individual capacity; SOPHIA HELENE NIX, LPN, in her individual capacity; TINA HOLLAND, RN, in her individual capacity; KATHRYN DAVIDSON, LPN, in her individual capacity; JOAN M. CUNNINGHAM, RN, in her individual capacity; SHAURI N. KRON, LPN, in her individual capacity; DAISHA WADE, LPN, in her individual capacity; and DEPUTY JOHN DOE ONE, in his individual capacity, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
William J. Martinez, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff
Benjamin Ramsey (“Ramsey”), appearing through his
mother in her role as legal guardian and next friend, alleges
that the acts and omissions of numerous parties
(collectively, “Defendants”) led to him being
denied necessary medications while in pretrial detention at
the Douglas County Jail, in turn leading to seizures and
permanent brain damage. He alleges, among other things,
violations of his constitutional rights (by way of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983).
On
October 7, 2019, Attorney Cheryl Trine entered her appearance
on behalf of Ramsey. (ECF No. 182.) Ms. Trine's and her
client's intent is that Ms. Trine replace Bovo Law, LLC,
and thus become Ramsey's sole counsel. (See ECF
No. 185.) Before the Court, however, is Defendants' Joint
Motion to Disqualify Counsel (“Motion to
Disqualify”). (ECF No. 183.) This motion seeks to
disqualify Ms. Trine based on information she gained
regarding Defendants that is potentially subject to a
protective order in a since-settled lawsuit presided by U.S.
District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, Kevin Hartwell et al.
v. Southwest Correctional Medical Group, PLLC, et al.,
Civil Action No. 17-cv-2278-RBJ (D. Colo., filed Sept. 20,
2017) (“Hartwell”).
For the
reasons explained below, Defendants' motion is denied.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A
motion to disqualify counsel is addressed to the sound
discretion of the district court.” World Youth Day,
Inc. v. Famous Artists Merch. Exch., Inc., 866 F.Supp.
1297, 1301 (D. Colo. 1994). The moving party bears “the
burden to establish the grounds for disqualification.”
Id. at 1299. With exceptions not relevant here, the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado has
adopted the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct
(“Colo. RPC”) to govern attorney conduct in this
District. See D.C.COLO.LAttyR 2(a).
II.
BACKGROUND
In
Hartwell, Ms. Trine represented Kevin Hartwell and
his wife, Barbara, in a lawsuit alleging that the Douglas
County Jail failed to administer, or to properly administer,
drugs needed to control Kevin's diabetes, high blood
pressure, and seizures-thus leading to seizures and other
serious consequences. (See generally Hartwell, ECF
No. 1.)[1] For all material purposes, the
Hartwell defendants and Defendants here are the
same.
The
parties in Hartwell stipulated to a protective order
(“Hartwell Protective Order”) which
allowed any party to designate documents produced in
discovery as “Confidential” if the party
“in good faith believes such documents or information
are protected by a statutory, regulatory, or common law right
of privacy due to containing confidential medical or
criminal information, or posing a jail security threat if
publicly disclosed.” (Hartwell, ECF No.
76 ¶ 3 (underscoring in original).) The order further
states that “Confidential Material shall be used only
for the limited purpose of preparing for and conducting this
civil action (including any appeals), and not for any other
purpose whatsoever.” (Id. ¶ 4.) In
addition, it says that “[t]he termination of this
action shall not relieve counsel or any party or other
persons obligated hereunder from their responsibility to
maintain the confidentiality of Confidential Information
pursuant to the Protective Order.” (Id. ¶
10.)
During
the course of discovery in Hartwell, Defendants
disclosed to Ms. Trine information they designated as
confidential. As an example (the only example Defendants
describe to this Court), they disclosed certain information
about “every inmate who was transferred to the hospital
[from the Douglas County Jail] between March 2016 and
December 2016.” (ECF No. 183 ¶ 15.) They made such
disclosure over an objection that Ms. Trine's discovery
requests were a “fishing expedition” and
“an improper invasion of the inmates' privacy
rights.” (Id.) What Defendants ultimately
disclosed, however, had all of the inmate names redacted, and
Judge Jackson ruled that the information was not properly
designated “confidential.” (ECF No. 184 at 2-3;
Hartwell, ECF No. 159.)
Hartwell
settled in September 2019. (Hartwell, ECF No. 246.)
Ms. Trine entered her appearance in this lawsuit on October
7, 2019. (ECF No. 182.) Defendants filed the Motion to
Disqualify the next day. (ECF No. 183.)
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
The Parties' Arguments
Defendants'
legal basis for seeking Ms. Trine's disqualification has
shifted somewhat over the course of briefing. The Motion to
Disqualify asserts Colo. RPC 1.7(a)(2), which Defendants
summarize and partially quote as follows: “[The]
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct contemplate a
situation where a lawyer must not represent a client if
‘there is significant risk that the representation of
one or more clients will be materially limited by the
lawyer's responsibilities to another client.'”
(ECF No. 183 ¶ 18.)[2] The Motion to Disqualify also cites
United States v. Culp, 934 F.Supp. 394 (M.D. Fla.
1996). Defendants describe this case as one in which the
district court “grant[ed] [the] government's motion
to disqualify defendant's chosen counsel where vigorous
representation of the current defendant would require him to
violate confidentiality obligations relating to prior
representation.” (ECF No. 183 ¶ 24.) The actual
holding is not so generic. The district court disqualified a
...