Protective Life Insurance Company v. Mizioch
2:10-cv-01728
D. Ariz.Oct 14, 2011Background
- Phyllis Mizioch died from three gunshot wounds; decedent's death triggers life insurance policy disputes with Mizioch as named beneficiary but as a person of interest in the murder case.
- Protective Life Insurance Company interpleads to identify proper policy beneficiaries; if Mizioch is involved in the murder, policy proceeds revert to the estate, benefiting Montoya siblings.
- Cross-claimant/Defendant Peter Mizioch moves to restrict extrajudicial comments and to shorten time to respond; Montoyas move to disqualify Davis Miles PLLC as counsel for Mizioch.
- Disqualification analysis centers on whether Montoyas were former clients of Davis Miles and whether current representation is substantially related to any prior matter.
- Debate centers on whether, even if a former-client relationship existed, there is a substantial risk that confidential information would be used adversely, and whether disqualification is a proportionate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disqualification: former client and substantial relation | Montoyas contend Davis Miles learned confidential info and now uses it against them. | Davis Miles contends no former-client relationship or substantial relation to current matter; any info obtained was public or independent. | Disqualification denied; no sufficient substantial relationship proven. |
| Extrajudicial comments restriction | Mizioch argues ongoing publicity threats the fairness of trial; media exposure risk requires restraint. | Montoyas argue publicity is not pervasive enough to threaten fair proceedings; restraint would be overbroad. | Motion to restrict extrajudicial comments denied. |
| Shortening time to respond | Immediate briefing required due to public controversy. | No necessity for shortened time beyond standard scheduling. | Motion moot; denied as to responsiveness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foulke v. Knuck, 784 P.2d 723 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (test for former client and substantial relationship in disqualification)
- Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., 93 P.3d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004) (substantial relationship analysis and disqualification considerations)
- Levine v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 764 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1985) (pretrial publicity and scope of restraining orders on extrajudicial statements)
- Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1976) (serious and imminent threat considerations for prior restraints)
- Alexander v. Superior Court, 685 P.2d 1309 (Ariz. 1984) (courts should use least burdensome remedy in conflicts of interest)
- Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007) (media coverage and public interest factors in considerations of fair trial)