MITSUBISHI, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS & SIDLEY AUSTIN ACCUSED OF GROSS MISCONDUCT IN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Interesting times we live in – Grail Semiconductors, Inc. filed a petition asking the California Superior Court to impose sanctions on Mitsubishi, as well as their attorneys, Squire Patton Boggs and Sidley Austin. In the petition, filed recently, Grail claims to have discovered there was “serious misconduct during the trial of this case” – a case which has already seen a California jury award $124 million in damages to Grail for breach of the non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”).
Mitsubishi USA claimed that Grail “allegedly did not have novel, useful and valuable technology and confidential information.”
The court already found that an NDA was breached, ruling: “It is beyond question here that Grail established every element of breach of contract, including resulting harm. The [trial] court did not find insufficient proof of the existence of damages; it ruled only that the amount of those damages was calculated incorrectly and therefore warranted a new trial using the correct measure of value.”
Mitsubishi and attorneys claimed that meetings with Grail were “so insignificant that no notes were taken, no memos were written and no emails were sent.”
The newly obtained documents see Grail claiming that emails which have now been obtained show fraudulent testimony by Mitsubishi witnesses and attorneys.
Grail further alleges that “We now know that the truth is such documents had been deleted by MEUS, but kept by MELCO and, worse, that MEUS and its counsel had access to them. When MEUS’s counsel learned of these lies and recently produced the “smoking gun” document, they did not immediately inform the Court of the false testimony, as was their duty.”
Allegations are made that Mitsubishi signed an NDA – and Grail claims that Mitsubishi blatantly lied during trial, as they say, “a far cry from the no notes, no emails, no documents Ms. Fudge and Mr. Hirayama swore was the case.”
Grail’s petition states that “ Immediately upon learning of the falsity of trial testimony and document responses, lawyers (like the Sidley Austin lawyers in this case) are obligated to call to the Court’s attention such false testimony. California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200 (lawyer’s duty of candor). COPRAC Formal Opinion 1983-74.
The California Business and Professions Code § 6126(a) even imposes misdemeanor criminal liability on a lawyer who engages in or consents to any deceit or collusion “with intent to deceive the court or any party.” At a minimum, such conduct should result in the severest of sanctions because it impacts the integrity of the judicial process itself.”
Grail demands that Squire Patton Boggs & Sidley Austin be barred from representing Mitsubishi, as well as sanctions, damages and more.
Expect this court to play out in the court of public opinion. Attached please find the full sanctions motion.
Top Public Relations News:
The App That Does It All: JetSmarter
Open on Thanksgiving? Profit versus PR
duomedia Announces Partnership with Gene Hunt for US Market
Apple opens up on Qualcomm with both barrels
NOVA SCOTIA LIQUOR CORPORATION SEEKS MARKETING AGENCY
Derris & Company: The PR Company That Does No PR Or Branding
Social Media Suite for Restaurants
Sears Hoping To Recapture Magic
Marketing RFP Issued By University of Wisconsin - Madison
How Much Profit Do Large Holding Companies in Public Relations Generate?