Quinn Emanuel disqualified from representing Uber competitor

A law firm representing one of Uber Technologies Inc.'s competitors suing for anticompetitive practices was booted from the case because of its prior defense of Uber against similar antitrust claims.

SC Innovations Inc. is the successor to the now-defunct ride-hailing service Sidecar Technologies and is alleging Uber undercut competition by sustaining losses in a bid to monopolize the market.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District granted Uber's motion to disqualify plaintiff lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP from representing Sidecar on Thursday. SC Innovations Inc. v. Uber Technologies Inc., 18-CV07440 (N.D. Cal., filed Dec. 11, 2018).

Quinn Emanuel's prior defense of Uber against antitrust claims was "substantially related" to the current case, Spero ruled. He pointed to litigation stemming from Yellow Cab Co.'s accusation Uber failed to comply with certain regulations governing taxis and other vehicle transportation services. Yellow Group LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., 12-CV7967 (N.D., Ill.).

The Sidecar case and the Yellow Cab case have "profound similarities between the allegations," which are "more sufficient to trigger the presumption that relevant confidential information was shared with Quinn Emanuel," attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP argued in their motion for disqualification.

Quinn represented and counseled Uber in 16 substantially related actions and matters, Gibson Dunn said.

Quinn Emanuel contended the Yellow Cab matters involved different facts, markets, claims, statutes and legal theories, and denied being in any possession of confidential Uber information related to the current case.

Sidecar's case is about how Uber put Sidecar out of business through anticompetitive conduct directed at it and other ride-hailing competitors, Quinn Emanuel said.

The judge didn't buy it.

It was reasonable for Uber to "expect that Quinn Emanuel would not now serve as counsel to a plaintiff bringing antitrust claims based on Uber's alleged conduct during the same time that Quinn Emanuel served as Uber's sole outside litigation counsel and defended Uber against unfair competition and antitrust claims, including at least some claims turning on factual questions underlying the case at hand," Spero wrote.

"Allowing this case to proceed while Uber is left to speculate what information its former attorneys shared with their colleagues would undermine 'the public trust both in the scrupulous administration of justice and in the integrity of the bar,'" Spero concluded.

Neither defense nor plaintiff counsel responded to requests for comment.