Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Caro
207 So. 3d 944
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Ada Caro (personal representative for the Estate of Francisco Caro) sued Philip Morris USA (PM) in an Engle-progeny cigarettes case; Paulo Lima, formerly an associate at Hunton & Williams, now represents Caro at the Ferraro firm.
- PM moved to disqualify Lima and the Ferraro firm, alleging Lima previously billed >1,500 hours for PM at Hunton, including >1,300 hours on smoking-and-health/product-liability matters and ~375 hours on Engle progeny work.
- PM submitted affidavits (Hunton partner Otero; ALCS litigation manager Harlowe) asserting Lima reviewed thousands of confidential PM documents and had access to PM litigation databases and work product.
- Caro opposed disqualification, arguing the trial court previously rejected similar motions elsewhere, that Engle findings leave only plaintiff-specific issues, and that any PM strategy knowledge is now public or not material to this case; Lima also submitted an affidavit denying particular contacts or deposition attendance.
- The trial court found an attorney-client relationship (triggering a presumption of disclosed confidences) but concluded PM failed to show the matters were "substantially related" and denied disqualification of Lima and the Ferraro firm.
- On certiorari review, the appellate court granted relief, quashed the trial court order, and directed disqualification of Lima and the Ferraro firm based on substantial relationship and actual confidential information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Caro) | Defendant's Argument (PM) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether former representation existed | Lima denies critical contacts; trial court found relationship insufficiently related to Caro's case | Lima formerly represented PM on numerous Engle-related matters, creating presumption of disclosed confidences | Former representation existed; presumption applies (trial court so found) |
| Whether current matter is "same or substantially related" to prior PM work | Engle-progeny cases have plaintiff-specific issues; prior defense work is distinct and/or now public | Lima’s prior work directly involved Engle defense strategies, product-liability defenses, and expert-related issues akin to current case | Substantially related: appellate court reversed trial court and found overlap in issues and defense work |
| Whether Lima actually acquired confidential, material information | Lima’s affidavit denied attending depositions/meetings that would convey confidential info; argued public domain or stale | PM presented detailed affidavits showing review of thousands of confidential documents and access to litigation databases; billed substantial hours on PM strategy | PM met burden to show Lima had access to material confidential information; Caro failed to rebut with competent substantial evidence |
| Whether Ferraro firm must be disqualified due to Lima’s prior work | Ferraro argued firm should not be disqualified absent proof Lima conveyed or had actual knowledge of material confidences | PM relied on Rule 4-1.10(b): firm cannot knowingly represent in substantially related matter when associated lawyer acquired material protected information | Court held Ferraro must be disqualified because PM proved Lima acquired material confidential information and Caro failed to rebut |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1991) (two-prong test for disqualification and presumption of disclosed confidences)
- Contant v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., Inc., 826 F. Supp. 427 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (disqualification where counsel’s prior defense work was substantially related to plaintiff’s claim)
- Health Care & Retirement Corp. of Am. v. Bradley, 961 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (distinguishable: negligence cases turn on unique facts and may not be substantially related)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stansbury, 374 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979) (supporting disqualification in related contexts)
- Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 2004) (unelaborated denials of extraordinary writs are not merits decisions)
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Engle class findings and Engle-progeny framework)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (Engle progeny jurisprudence)