Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pattern sued Arlo Technologies, and Arlo asserted counterclaims. David Wright, Pattern’s president and co-founder, was not a party, but moved to intervene for the limited purpose of asking the court to disqualify Arlo’s counsel, Dentons US. Wright alleged that Dentons had represented him and his family for years, including on matters involving Pattern.
Arlo opposed intervention and emphasized that Wright’s interests were distinct from Pattern’s. Wright did not ask to take over the merits litigation; he sought only a procedural foothold to present a conflict-of-interest motion concerning his asserted attorney-client relationship.
The Court’s Holding
The court permitted intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. It found the request timely, recognized that the alleged prior representation gave Wright a protectable interest potentially impaired by the litigation, and concluded that Pattern could not adequately represent Wright’s personal confidentiality and loyalty interests.
The court explained that it did not have to decide the ultimate disqualification question at the intervention stage. Wright’s allegations were enough to show that the proposed motion concerned his own claimed relationship with Dentons and could not be fairly presented solely through the existing parties. The court also concluded that permissive intervention was independently appropriate because the conflict issue shared factual and legal questions with the main action and the limited intervention would not unduly delay adjudication.
Wright was ordered to file the disqualification motion by October 16, 2026. The order therefore decided who may raise the issue, not whether Dentons will ultimately be disqualified.
Key Takeaways
- A nonparty client or former client may have a sufficient interest to intervene solely to protect confidentiality and loyalty interests implicated by current litigation.
- The intervention inquiry does not require the court to prejudge the merits of the proposed disqualification motion.
- A sharply limited request can reduce concerns that intervention will expand or delay the underlying case.
- An existing corporate party may not adequately represent an individual’s personal interests arising from a separate attorney-client relationship.
Why It Matters
California businesses and litigators should treat intervention and disqualification as separate questions. A court can allow a potentially affected client into a case so the conflict record can be developed, while reserving the difficult ethics ruling for a noticed motion.
Counsel evaluating adversity to an organizational client should also identify relationships with founders, officers, and family members. Even when those people are not parties, their asserted personal representation can create satellite litigation and affect the company’s choice of counsel.
The order is also a reminder to distinguish an interim procedural ruling from a final decision on the merits. Counsel should identify exactly what the court decided, preserve any deadlines or evidentiary burdens created by the order, and avoid overstating issues the judge expressly left open. For clients, that means updating the litigation plan now: assign responsibility for the next filing or compliance step, preserve the supporting record, and reassess settlement and business risk using the ruling’s actual scope. A focused response is usually more valuable than treating every adverse procedural development as though it finally resolved liability. The team should also circulate the order to the people responsible for discovery, payroll, regulatory compliance, or outside-counsel management, as applicable, because the practical cost of a ruling often depends on quick operational follow-through. Building that implementation record can prevent missed deadlines and make any later request for modification more credible.