Judge considers Uber bid to disqualify Quinn Emanuel from antitrust case

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge appeared inclined Friday to disqualify a law firm from representing one of Uber Technologies Inc.'s competitors suing for anticompetitive practices because of its prior role as one of the ridesharing company's "closest legal advisers," as the defense put it.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of San Francisco told Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP attorneys their previous work defending Uber against antitrust claims seems "substantially related to this case."

"I just don't understand how you get past that," he said.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, who represents Uber, argued the Los Angeles-based firm should be removed as SC Innovations Inc.'s attorneys because it formerly served as Uber's counsel in roughly 20 lawsuits. Sixteen of those cases included allegations of unfair competition, he continued.

Spero was particularly concerned about a lawsuit brought by Yellow Cab Co. in 2014, accusing Uber, which was represented by Quinn Emanuel, of engaging in unfair competition by failing to comply with certain regulations governing taxis and other vehicle transportation services.

Boutrous urged the judge to compare Yellow Cab's allegations that Uber "improperly and unlawfully induc[es] drivers to contract with Uber" with SC Innovations' accusations that the ridesharing company "fraudulently requested trips as an opportunity to convince drivers to work exclusively with Uber instead of its competitors."

The degree of similarity between the cases should not "deprive our clients of chosen counsel," argued plaintiff's attorney Robert P. Feldman of Quinn Emanuel.

SC Innovations is the successor to the now-defunct ride-hailing application Sidecar Technologies Inc. It is suing Uber for undercutting competition by sustaining losses on rides in a bid to monopolize the market. SC Innovations Inc. v. Uber Technologies Inc., 18-CV07440 (N.D. Cal., filed Dec. 11, 2018).

Quinn Emanuel split with Uber in 2016 because the fee arrangement "no longer made financial sense" and withdrew from almost all matters representing the ridesharing company, according to the defense's motion to disqualify counsel.

The issue in Yellow Cab's allegations concerned refusal to comply with prices set by taxi regulators whereas this case is over ride-hailing applications and noncompliance with municipal ordinances, according to Feldman.

"It's a different market," he said.

Spero appeared skeptical, saying the "line is not so clear." He then asked Feldman about the firm's work for Uber on California Public Utilities Commission proceedings and how confidential information exchanged during that assignment does not constitute disqualification since this case will concern similar issues.

"The existence of overlap and the existence of similarity is not surprising," he responded. "I'm telling you that the CPUC's tail should not wag this long."

Boutrous disagreed with the extent of confidential information Quinn Emanuel purported to know. The firm was a "key legal strategist" for Uber in a variety of matters.

The commission's jurisdiction is going to be a crucial defense for Uber against SC Innovations' claims, according to Boutrous.

"They were the architects of the position [they are taking in this case]," he said. "And they are now taking the opposite position."

The hearing ended on a slightly positive note for plaintiff's attorneys with Spero saying he needs to "go back into the weeds" to weigh whether the degree of overlap requires disqualification.