U.S. Markets close in 1 hr 47 mins

Judge Denies Effort by Attorney to Pry into Servers of His Former Partner's New Law Firm

SAN JOSE, Calif., April 13, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Attorney Brian Mitchell -- A federal judge denied a motion today that would have allowed patent prosecutor Zurvan Mahamedi the opportunity to pry into the private servers of his former law partner, William Paradice, rejecting Mahamedi's claim that Paradice had not complied with an earlier court order to preserve records related to the former partnership.

Mahamedi had asked Judge Edward J. Davila of the Federal District Court in San Jose to order Paradice to open his new law practice's computer server, claiming, with absolutely no evidence, that it contained Mahamedi trade secrets and confidential information from his clients.  But, in denying his motion, "the judge appears to have been satisfied that his original order was carried out," said intellectual property attorney Brian Mitchell, representing Paradice, after the hearing on Mahamedi's motion.  Mitchell noted that Paradice's laptop, desktop, iPad, iPhone, and a 64-gig flash drive had already been mirrored by a third-party IT firm. "What Mr. Mahamedi was asking the court to allow today was an overreach that was unprecedented and unnecessary."

Court testimony has demonstrated that Paradice had done nothing to violate the parties' partnership agreements and was in fact the victim of a witch hunt by a former partner angered over a bitter law firm divorce.  Mahamedi appears to be using the courts in apparent retaliation for having been caught intercepting Paradice's client emails for nearly 2 months after Paradice left the old partnership.

"Mr. Mahamedi's legal strategy borders on paranoia," said Mitchell. "He sees evidence of stolen trade secrets around every turn, but he is simply guessing -- incorrectly. This is unprecedented overreach from an attorney who is letting the emotions of a nasty law firm break-up cloud his judgment."

As part of his argument before the judge, Mahamedi produced a heavily redacted "highly sensitive" email between Paradice and a young associate of the old firm as evidence that Paradice was undermining Mahamedi client base. But a complete version of the email produced by Paradice in court showed the Mahamedi had redacted such innocuous phrases as "to make a long story short" and "sorry to drop all of this on you on a Sunday," in an apparent attempt to make the email seem more important than it was.

"The associate wanted advice from Mr. Paradice on an ethical question regarding a conflict of interest with one of Mr. Mahamedi's clients, nothing more," Mitchell said. "Mahamedi's redactions were silly and based on a phony reality of his own making."

Mahamedi also claimed that Paradice emailed himself "Mahamedi trade secrets" before leaving his former partnership. But when produced by Paradice's legal team, the email was shown in court to contain a common spreadsheet with publicly available information such as patent numbers and court filing dates.  

Mitchell noted that Mahamedi owes his former partner a significant amount of money related to previously billed work, and is apparently using the courts to avoid facing up to his financial responsibilities to Paradice.

"The fact is, Mr. Mahamedi has built his legal arguments on conspiracy theories and false premises that lack credibility and fail to pass common sense legal tests," Mitchell said. "In denying his most recent motion today, we think that the judge is inclined to agree."  

Media contact
Kevin Keane
kevin@singersf.com

 

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/judge-denies-effort-by-attorney-to-pry-into-servers-of-his-former-partners-new-law-firm-300439747.html