Laguana v. United Airlines, Inc., 1:22-cv-00027

Plaintiff, Joseph Laguana, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against United Airlines, alleging disability discrimination and hostile work environment.
Plaintiff’s expert, Garrett J. Hoe, was subpoenaed by United for deposition and documents, which led to disputes regarding the validity of the subpoenas.
While motions to quash the subpoenas were pending, United’s counsel (Ronald Tang, Marr Jones & Wang LLP) contacted Plaintiff’s expert, resulting in the present motion to disqualify or sanction United’s attorneys.
Plaintiff alleged improper ex parte communications, arguing they violated expert discovery rules and sought either disqualification or sanctions.
The court reviewed conflicting declarations about the nature of the contact and considered whether United’s counsel’s actions warranted attorney disqualification or another penalty.
The ultimate sanction imposed was a $500 fine against United and its attorneys, rather than disqualification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Improper ex parte contact with expert during pending motion to quash	Contact with Hoe was improper and intended to sow distrust, violating discovery rules	Counsel only contacted Hoe to confirm subpoena receipt and logistics, which is permissible	Contact was improper but not sanctionable by disqualification; $500 sanction imposed
Disqualification of opposing counsel for conduct	Disqualification warranted due to prejudicial, unethical behavior	Disqualification unwarranted; no prejudice or divided loyalties occurred	Disqualification denied
Appropriateness of lesser sanctions	Alternatively seeks a lesser penalty if disqualification deemed too harsh	No sanction justified given lack of prejudice or improper inducement	$500 monetary sanction awarded
Prejudice to Plaintiff from opposing counsel’s actions	Counsel’s conduct risked undermining expert’s trust in Plaintiff’s trial team	No prejudice as expert remained Plaintiff’s witness and deposition proceeded	No prejudice found, so nominal sanction only

Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298 (9th Cir. 1996) (improper ex parte contact with opposing expert requiring court to address claim of unethical conduct)
Trust Corp. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85 (9th Cir. 1983) (court’s responsibility to supervise attorney conduct before it)