Lawyers say opponents are lying, judge calls one a fool in DNA test dispute

Attorneys for a Palo Alto biotechnology company, Guardant Health Inc., are accusing attorneys of a rival health care company of repeatedly lying to the court and asked a federal judge to dismiss counterclaims as a sanction. At one point, the judge called an attorney a fool for believing his witness.

The case pits Keller/Anderle LLP, representing Guardant, against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, representing genetic testing company Natera Inc.

In court filings, Keller/Anderle asked for sanctions and repeatedly said Quinn Emanuel's representations to the court on behalf of its client were false.

Quinn Emanuel partner Andrew J. Bramhall declined to comment Tuesday. But in court papers filed in July, he argued that Guardant and its lawyers are trying to "leverage a dispute about document searches ... into a reason to exclude some of the most relevant evidence in this case."

The dispute revolves around a Natera third-party expert, Dr. Howard Hochster, and what he knew about a study, known as COBRA, focusing on the ctDNA tests for cancer. Guardant Health Inc. v. Natera Inc., 21-CV-04062 (N.D. Cal., filed May 27, 2021).

"Dismissal of Natera's counterclaims is clearly justified given Natera's persistent false statements, concealment of relevant evidence, and failure to correct the record," Keller/Anderle partner Chase A. Scolnick wrote Friday in a supplemental memorandum in a motion for sanctions.

Scolnick, who declined to comment Tuesday, wrote that Natera's revelations prove that his proposed sanctions - which include a key demand of excluding all evidence from the COBRA study as well as monetary sanctions - are justified.

"Natera's representation to the Court on February 22, 2024, that Dr. Hochster had no 'inside information' or 'early access' to those results was knowingly false," he wrote in the motion, which was partially redacted.

"Moreover, the repeated statements in Natera's opposition to Guardant's motion for sanctions that Natera and its counsel 'certainly' did not know Dr. Hochster had obtained early access to the COBRA results in September 2023 were also knowingly false," Scolnick added.

Bramhall of Quinn Emanuel argued in court papers filed in July that Keller/Anderle and its client, Guardant are trying to exclude the failure of Guardant's assay to meet expectations in the national clinical trial. Bramhall called this "some of the most relevant evidence in this case."

"Guardant has tried to bury the significance of the COBRA trial for months," Bramhall added. "Guardant's repeated attempts to hide this extremely relevant evidence has been rejected each time before and must be rejected now."

Quinn Emanuel is due to file an opposition to the sanctions motion on Friday.

Guardant sued Natera in May 2021 for false advertising both under the Lanham Act and state law, as well as unfair business practices and unfair competition. Natera responded by filing a counterclaim against its rival.

Senior U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, may be a tough audience for Natera during the sanctions hearing scheduled for Oct. 15. During a July 26 hearing, he grilled Quinn Emanuel partner Ryan S. Landes about why the company did not disclose about 70 documents between Hochster and COBRA.

"So, the simple explanation, Your Honor, Dr. Hochster testified to this in his deposition, is that he did not remember having these emails," Landes told the judge.

Chen asked if he "honestly believed that."

Landes said yes.

"Well, you're a fool," the judge replied, according to a transcript.

But he also told Scolnick that he was doubtful that the COBRA study should be excluded unless the results "were somehow tainted as a result."

The case is scheduled to go to trial next month.