Reid v. Samsung Sdi Co.

• Docket Number: A22A1728
• Decision Date: 30 January 2023
• Citation: 366 Ga.App. 570,883 S.E.2d 584
• Parties: REID v. SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

366 Ga.App. 570

883 S.E.2d 584

REID

v.SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.

A22A1728

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

January 30, 2023

Min J. Koo Koo, Infinity Trial Group, for Appellant.

Christine Lupo Mast, Robert Sheffield Thompson, Hawkins Parnell & Young, Atlanta, for Appellee.

Phipps, Senior Appellate Judge.

Roymandal Reid sued Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. ("SDI"), and The Vape Loft GA, LLC ("Vape Loft"), alleging that a battery manufactured by SDI and sold by Vape Loft exploded in his pocket, injuring him. SDI moved to disqualify Reid's attorney, Min J. Koo, who previously had worked for SDI's product liability insurer. The trial court granted the motion, finding that Koo's former employment created a relationship with SDI akin to an attorney-client relationship in which Koo was privy to confidential information about SDI relevant to this case. Reid filed an application for interlocutory appeal in this Court. We granted the application, and we now affirm the trial court's ruling.

Reid alleges that in 2018, he purchased from Vape Loft for use in an e-cigarette device an 18650 lithium-ion battery manufactured by SDI. The battery later exploded in his pants pocket, causing severe burns to his body. Reid alleges that SDI has been designing and manufacturing lithium-ion batteries since 2000 and "has been aware for more than a decade" that these batteries, including the 18650 battery, "have an inherent risk of fire and explosion," are used in e-cigarette devices, and are alleged to have caused fires and explosions. Reid further states that SDI "has faced hundreds of personal injury and property damage claims and lawsuits in the United States alone for more than a decade for their lithium-ion batteries, including 18650 batteries[.]" The complaint asserts claims for strict liability design defect, strict liability failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, punitive damages, and attorney fees and litigation expenses.

Reid is represented by attorney Koo. The record shows that from 2011 to 2017, Koo worked for Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. ("SFMI"), as the "Head of Global Legal and Global General Counsel." During this period, SFMI provided "legal defense and coverage to SDI in relation to product liability claims arising out of its products, including 18650 lithium-ion battery cells[.]" SDI's insurance policy required it to "[c]ooperate with [SFMI] in the investigation, settlement or defense of the claim or suit," and prohibited it from "voluntarily mak[ing] a payment, assum[ing] any obligation, or incur[ring] any expense, other than for first aid, without [SFMI's] consent."

SDI filed a motion to disqualify Koo from representing Reid in this case "based on conflicts of interest and the significant likelihood that SDI's confidential and privileged information was obtained by Ms. Koo during her representation of SFMI and handling of the defense of SDI's claims." In support of its motion, SDI submitted an affidavit from Jaehyon Cho, who averred that he managed overseas claims and litigation for SDI and that Koo had handled a variety of product liability claims against SDI, including claims involving lithium-ion batteries generally and the 18650 battery specifically. According to Cho, "SDI personnel dealt with Ms. Koo in at least one e-bike claim, two laptop claims, and one e-cigarette claim, all of which allegedly involved 18650 lithium-ion battery cells." SDI's motion to disqualify also cited Koo's professional website, which advertised that her prior experience at SFMI made her "uniquely qualified for ... helping injured individuals and their families," and Koo's appearance on a 2021 podcast in which she discussed how she is "now using [her insurance] expertise to help individuals on the other side," including working on a Samsung battery case.

Reid moved to strike Cho's affidavit, claiming that it was not based on personal knowledge because Cho did not work for SFMI and had no relationship with Koo. Reid also claimed that Cho's affidavit contained perjurious misrepresentations of Koo's role at SDI. In support of the motion, Reid submitted Koo's affidavit, in which she averred that she had acted as "coverage counsel" for SFMI, assigning cases to members of her department; that she generally did not handle cases directly; and that SDI was merely "one of hundreds of thousands of insureds" at SFMI. According to Koo, claims against SFMI's insureds were defended by the insureds’ outside counsel, who had "full and complete control" over those claims, and "all SFMI insureds, including SDI, worked directly and closely with outside counsel in managing their own cases." Koo averred that SFMI's role was "to provide administrative claim support by ensuring litigation fees and expenses [we]re promptly paid and to financially indemnify the insured when settlements occur[red] or verdicts [we]re rendered." Koo denied working with Cho. Finally, Koo stated that SDI's insurance policy did not require it to share confidential or proprietary information with SFMI; that Koo had never received any "compromising information with regard to SDI's technology, production, manufacture, design, distribution, supply chains, marketing or use information about its 18650 lithium-ion batteries"; that any information or document she received from SDI was shared at SDI's discretion without her solicitation; and that she had never received any reports from any SDI expert.

In response to Reid's motion to strike, SDI submitted a second affidavit from Cho averring that he had worked on at least four cases with Koo involving "product liability claims relating to 18650 battery cells used in laptops, power tool[s], and e-cigarette devices." Cho further averred that he had located at least 20 e-mails related to these cases that had been sent to Koo and contained confidential SDI information, and his affidavit attached redacted copies of those e-mails. SDI also submitted an affidavit from Jong Youn Kim, an SDI attorney "responsible for managing overseas claims and litigations" while Koo was at SFMI. Kim averred that Koo had worked on at least seven product liability cases involving the SDI 18650 battery and that he (Kim) had served as lead in-house counsel for many of these cases. Kim further averred that he and Koo were sent at least 70 e-mails related to these cases which contained SDI's confidential information. Kim attached redacted copies of these emails to his affidavit. Finally, SDI submitted an affidavit from attorney James Doyle, who averred that he had represented SDI, apparently as outside counsel, since 2012; that he had reported to SFMI on all matters for which he represented SDI; that he had sent or received multiple e-mails and documents pertaining to those cases; and that Koo "was either directly communicated with or copied, as a representative of SDI's insurer, on all referenced e[-]mails and documents." Doyle attached redacted copies of these e-mails and documents to his affidavit. SDI provided to the trial court for in camera inspection unredacted copies of all documents attached to the affidavits, totaling approximately 350 pages.

Following a hearing, and after reviewing the documents submitted for in camera inspection, the trial court granted SDI's motion to disqualify Koo.¹ The court found that

[i]n her role with SFMI, Ms. Koo routinely received detailed reports and information on a range of sensitive topics, both directly from SDI and through SDI's outside defense counsel.... [T]he information included private, privileged, and confidential information concerning SDI's and its outside counsel's analysis of the merits of claims against SDI and SDI's defenses, their assessment of potential exposure to SDI, and SDI's litigation and even settlement strategy.... SDI was required by its SFMI policy terms to fully cooperate with SFMI, and in practical terms, this meant SDI in-house and outside counsel shared confidential information and collaborated with SFMI [,] and specifically with Ms. Koo, during her tenure with SFMI, about their liability analysis, inspection observations, and opinions held by SDI's consulting experts, causation and damage assessments, and litigation and settlement strategy, among other topics. Ms. Koo received SDI's confidential information in her prior employment as an attorney directly involved in the defense of SDI in similar litigation. She provided much more than administrative claim support in her role.

The court concluded that although Koo did not directly represent SDI, "her role as in-house counsel to SFMI was so akin to actual representation of SDI that we must apply the same analysis normally applied to assess whether prior representation of a client conflicts with present representation." Applying this analysis, the court ruled that "the only adequate method of protecting SDI's information is to preclude Ms. Koo from representing [Reid] against SDI." At Reid's request, the court certified its order for immediate review, and we granted his application for interlocutory appeal.²

Under Georgia law, "a lawyer is disqualified from representing a party against a former client in a matter that is ‘substantially related’ to the lawyer's prior representation." Crawford W. Long Mem. Hosp. of Emory Univ. v. Yerby , 258 Ga. 720, 721 (1), 373 S.E.2d 749 (1988). See also Rule 1.9 (a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d) ("A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing."). Further, lawyers are required to "maintain in confidence all information gained in the professional relationship with a client, including information ... the disclosure of which ... would likely be detrimental to the client[.]" Rule 1.6 (a) of the Georgia Rules of...