It’s not clear why John Quinn — founding partner of litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel, and one of the country’s leading business litigators — doesn’t have more followers on Twitter. Right now he’s up to 475. He’s definitely worth following; you can follow him here.

You’ll be exposed to some interesting tweets — like this one, from over the weekend:

isaac larian, mga owner+adverse party in “bratz” case, showed up at my trial this week; claimed witness was being signaled from audience!

Bizarre — especially since the trial that Larian attended has nothing to do with the ongoing Barbie / Bratz litigation (in which Quinn represents Barbie maker Mattel against Isaac Larian’s company, Bratz maker MGA). The trial that Larian randomly appeared at is in the case of Bren v. Bren, a child support action brought against billionaire Donald Bren, Quinn’s client.

So what was this strange tweet about? We checked in with John Quinn, in between his weekend workout and witness-prep sessions….

We asked Quinn what this was all about — and whether Larian’s claim of witness coaching was reflected anywhere in the trial transcript. Quinn responded (some punctuation and capitalization added):

It’s not on the record. During a recess, Isaac approached my opposing counsel, Hillel Chodos, and told him the witness was being signaled. I don’t think Chodos believed it because he didn’t take it up with the court.

It’s total nonsense, of course. Isaac needs to get a life. I thought he had a company to run.

This sounds… weird. But weird is par for the course in the Barbie/Bratz litigation. Last week, Quinn’s adversaries at Orrick accused QE lawyers of participating in a Mattel-orchestrated racketeering scheme involving corporate espionage.

Larian’s strange claims of witness coaching by Quinn, made in an unrelated trial that he just decided to show up at, make him sound paranoid. They don’t exactly enhance the credibility of the racketeering and espionage claims made by MGA against Mattel and Quinn Emanuel.

But those claims, as summarized by Corporate Counsel, are a bit more specific and credible — and capable of being proved or disproved. Orrick lawyers claim that they’re supported by the deposition testimony of an ex-Mattel employee. Quinn Emanuel, speaking through partner Michael Zeller, describes the MGA allegations as “second-rate tactics by desperate lawyers” that “won’t survive the pleading stage.”

So stay tuned. And, if you’re on Twitter, follow John Quinn — you won’t be disappointed.

P.S. You can also follow ATL blog, Elie Mystal, and yours truly.

Billionaire Donald Bren testifies in lawsuit [Associated Press]
Welcome to the Dollhouse: Bratz-Barbie Fight Takes Nasty New Turn [Corporate Counsel]

Earlier: john quinn of quinn emanuel is on twitter


comments sponsored by

16 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments