“Lawyers for Musk’s X Corp kicked off data-scraping case” —

• “One of Elon Musk’s longtime law firms has been disqualified from representing his social media company X Corp in a lawsuit that accused Israeli data-scraping Bright Data Ltd of illegally copying content from the platform.”
• “U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco said in a ruling issued Friday, opens new tab that the lawsuit is factually and legally similar to a separate case that Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc, opens new tab had brought against Bright Data, and that X’s law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan had advised Bright Data on that case.”
• “Quinn Emanuel ‘now attacks a former client whose on-point battleplan it helped create just over one year ago,’ Aslup said.”
• “‘We respectfully disagree with the ruling and are evaluating next steps,’ a Quinn Emanuel spokesperson said. The 1,000-lawyer litigation-focused firm has represented Musk and his companies in court cases involving the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other matters.”
• “Meta and X separately sued Bright Data last year for allegedly copying and selling their content illegally, and selling tools that let others copy and sell content. Bright Data denied the claims. Meta dropped its case against Bright Data in February after losing a key ruling.”
• “X’s initial complaint against Bright Data, which was filed by another law firm, was dismissed in May. In June, lawyers at Quinn Emanuel sought to file an amended lawsuit on X’s behalf.”
• “In its bid to disqualify the firm, Bright Data said it hired lawyers from Quinn Emanuel in 2023 to evaluate its litigation strategy against Meta, paying the firm nearly $40,000.”
• “Although the Quinn Emanuel lawyers that advised Bright Data are different than the ones that advised X, the entire law firm owes a duty of loyalty to Bright Data, Alsup ruled.”

“Even When Big Cases Intersect With Their Families’ Interests, Many Judges Choose Not to Recuse” —

• “In an examination of more than 1,200 federal judges and state supreme court justices, ProPublica, in partnership with student journalists at Boston University, found dozens of judges, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, who chose not to recuse when facing potential appearances of impropriety involving familial financial connections. Ethics experts say that the judges’ interpretation of the rules may often lie within the letter of the law, but at the expense of its spirit.”
• “In Florida, a state Supreme Court justice presided over a gambling case in which a Native American tribe sought to protect billions in betting revenue. During the proceedings, the tribe made an unusually large campaign contribution to the justice’s wife, a state legislator. The judge later helped form a court majority that struck down the constitutional challenge, protecting the tribe’s business.”
• “In Minnesota, a federal judge heard an antitrust case against a corporation that was a major client of the public relations firm owned by his wife. He went on to dismiss the case, in the corporation’s favor.”
• “And in both Ohio and North Carolina, state supreme court justices rejected calls from ethics watchdogs to recuse themselves from multiple cases involving a parent who is a powerful state politician.”
• “Amid cratering confidence in the impartiality of both the federal and state judicial systems, experts worry that such failures to police conflicts of interest only further erode public confidence.”
• “The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law proposed a series of reforms in 2016, including independent review of all motions for disqualification — at both the U.S. and state supreme courts — so judges don’t effectively serve as the final arbiters of their own biases. Brennan also advocated ending the common practice of judges keeping their reasons for recusal — or non-recusal — secret, which can stymie the appeals process and create a void in case law.”