PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania attorney alleges that proprietary information from his law firm is in the possession of other counsel, and that those defendants have refused to return his information to him.
Michael P. O’Day (doing business as “The Law Offices of Michael P. O’Day”) of Aspinwall filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 4 versus Brawna Sell of Woodbury and Kathy Mauk (doing business as “Evey Black Attorneys”) of Roaring Spring.
“'On or about Jan. 10, 2022, plaintiff retained the services of attorney John W. Sullivan III, 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1502, New York, NY 10038, related to an ongoing confidential personnel investigation related to his law practice, located here in Allegheny County. During the course of attorney Sullivan’s ongoing investigation, several peculiarities were discovered regarding, particular email communications between plaintiff from his law offices located here in Allegheny County to defendant Sell in Bedford County, who immediately forwarded all of plaintiff’s email communications to defendant Mauk in Blair County,” the suit says.
“As a result of discovering these peculiarities, on Dec. 21, 2022, attorney Sullivan, initially attempted to contact defendant Mauk’s counsel, Amy Coco, via email, regarding specific metadata, contained in these particular email(s). Specifically, plaintiff allegedly sent several emails to defendant Sell, it was attorney Sullivan’s intention to retrieve these emails and the metadata contained therein, that are currently in both defendants’ possession to further his confidential personnel investigation on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Coco did not respond to attorney Sullivan’s initial email.”
The suit adds that on Jan. 11, 2023, presuming attorney Coco no longer represented Mauk, attorney Sullivan sent an email to Mauk directly, requesting as a professional courtesy that she contact him regarding the requested email(s) that Sell had forwarded to her and the return of plaintiff’s company property, i.e., specific information contained in particular email header(s) that contained plaintiff’s metadata. Mauk did not respond to attorney Sullivan’s Jan. 11 email.
“Thereafter, on Jan. 20, 2023, attorney Sullivan sent a follow up email to Mauk again requesting as a professional courtesy that she contact him regarding the requested email(s) in her possession and the return of plaintiff’s company property i.e., information contained in particular email headers that contained plaintiff’s metadata. Thereafter, on Jan. 24, 2023, attorney Sullivan sent an email to attorney Coco following an initial phone conversation wherein she confirmed her representation of Mauk. Again, attorney Sullivan specifically requested the return of metadata contained in the email header(s) that are the property of plaintiff’s law practice and presumably still in the possession of defendants Sell and/or Mauk,” the suit states.
“Thereafter, on Feb. 2nd and Feb. 14, 2023, attorney Sullivan sent additional emails to attorney Coco (who did not communicate with attorney Sullivan following their initial phone call, and/or Jan. 24 follow-up email) again specifically requesting the return of metadata, contained in the email header(s) that are the property of plaintiff’s law practice and presumably still in the possession of defendants Sell and/or Mauk. On Feb. 24, 2023, attorney Coco replied to attorney Sullivan’s email on that same day, rather than simply coordinating the return of plaintiff’s emails, she specifically denied plaintiff’s multiple requests and alleged that a cause of action and/or legal authority did not exist that would compel defendants to comply with plaintiff’s numerous requests.”
Subsequently, the suit states, on Feb. 28, 2023, attorney Coco further responded to attorney Sullivan via email, further alleging that a cause of action and/or authority did not exist, and adding the defenses of statute of limitation, standing, lack of possessory interest, privilege and/or confidentiality as reasoning for defendants’ failure to comply with plaintiff’s numerous requests to simply return his company metadata contained in his company emails.
All of attorney Coco’s reasonings and/or defenses are neither supported in law and/or fact and defendants Mauk and Sell inexplicably continue to refuse to return plaintiff’s company property as of the filing of this complaint in civil action.
For two counts of conversion, the plaintiff is seeking the immediate return of any and all intangible company property merged into the form of his confidential privileged emails, and any and all metadata in native form, contained therein, currently in the possession of the defendants, injunctive relief and/or any other relief in equity that this Honorable Court deems appropriate, plus damages, including attorney’s fees, and requests judgment against the defendants, individually and collectively, in an amount exceeding the arbitration division limits.
The plaintiff is representing himself in this matter.
The defendants are represented by Bethann R. Lloyd of Weinheimer Haber & Coco, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-004603
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com