Warrington Parker

Partner

San Francisco


Read full biography at www.orrick.com
Warrington S. Parker is a partner in Orrick's San Francisco office. His practice includes both civil and criminal matters. He is a member of the White Collar, Investigations, Securities Litigation & Compliance Group.

Warrington's practice involves the representation of clients in both civil and criminal matters. These matters typically include government involvement or claimed violations of state and federal regulations or statutes. Thus, Warrington has represented clients in False Claims Act matters, claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission, employment discrimination cases involving a federal research facility, allegations of fraud and breach of contract brought against a client by a state, and allegations that a school board inappropriately spent bond monies in violation of California law.

Warrington has conducted criminal and civil investigations, both nationally and internationally, including FCPA investigations in China and Japan. Warrington has handled and managed state and federal civil cases from the filing of complaints to discovery and trial. Since joining Orrick in 2008, Warrington has tried two criminal cases and three civil cases. 

From 1992 to 1996, Warrington was Assistant United States Attorney for the United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California, Criminal Division in Los Angeles.

Before joining Orrick, Warrington was a shareholder at Heller Ehrman.

The following is a sample of Warrington's notable cases.

  • Alpine Unified School District v. Grossmont Union High School District. Following trial, obtained defense verdict that also resulted in the setting aside of a preliminary injunction in a dispute involving the claimed inappropriate expenditure of school bond monies. 
  • United States v. Deller.  Obtained verdict favoring client in which the government alleged wire fraud and securities fraud.
  • Andrews et al. v. Lawrence Livermore Lab. Co-tried case and obtained defense verdict in favor of Lawrence Livermore Lab in a case alleging disparate impact age discrimination.
  • State of Oregon v. Oracle. Participated in team that litigated allegations brought by Oregon against Oracle alleging violations of the False Claims Act, fraud and breach of contract as a result of Oracle's work on Oregon's healthcare exchange.
  • Represent Fortune 100 company in FCPA investigations in China and Japan.
  • Represented medical device company in government investigation concerning alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
  • Mattel v. MGA Entertainment. Helped obtain reversal of US$100 million verdict and injunctive relief and verdict in favor of client.
  • Represented an ISP in a trade secrets misappropriation and breach of contract action resulting in favorable termination for client.
  • Represented a company in a trade secrets misappropriation and breach of contract action resulting in favorable termination for client.
  • Represented an insurer in a matter involving an unfair competition claim.
  • Represented a defense contractor in a dispute involving claims of fraud and breach of contract resulting in favorable termination for the client.
  • Represented a client in a special investigation and follow on derivative action and class action securities claims concerning alleged stock option backdating.
  • Represented a high-tech company in a dispute concerning failed computer parts.
  • Obtained dismissal of a False Claims Act complaint filed against client.
  • Black Rock City, LLC v. Pershing County Board of Commissioners (Ninth Circuit). Drafted appellate briefs for Black Rock City, the entity that organizes the annual Burning Man event. Without argument, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to invalidate a settlement agreement that resolved Nevada officials' claimed infringement of our client's First Amendment rights.
  • Bradley v. Perrodin (Cal. Court of Appeal). Obtained reversal of order following an election challenge that would have permanently banned the client from participating in elections.
  • Nassgil v. Hughes Electronics (Cal. Court of Appeal). Successfully represented the client in appeal from the denial of an arbitration request and successfully prosecuted a writ petition involving a discovery matter.
  • PMI v. AISLIC (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit). Successfully represented the client in an insurance coverage matter.
  • Bank of America v. Williams (Cal. Court of Appeal). Successfully represented the client in an attorneys' fees dispute.
  • iTech v. National Semiconductor (Cal. Court of Appeal). Obtained the reversal of a multimillion dollar jury verdict.
  • U.S. v. Hall (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit). Obtained reversal of conviction for securities fraud.
  • FAIR v. Rumsfeld (U.S. Supreme Court). Represented law schools and professors in a First Amendment challenge to the Solomon Amendment.
  • Parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist. (U.S. Supreme Court). Represented as amici in matter involving a constitutional challenge.
  • Evans v. City of Berkeley (Cal. Supreme Court). Represented as amici in matter involving a constitutional challenge.

Posts by: Warrington Parker

Whistle While You Work?: First Court To Rule On DTSA’s Whistleblower Immunity Provision Treats It As An Affirmative Defense

The Defend Trade Secret Act (“DTSA”) contains a whistleblower immunity provision which could have a significant impact on employers. Until last month, however, no court had interpreted this provision which provides that no one “shall be held criminally or civilly liable under Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret” made in confidence to a government official or an attorney and “solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law.” 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b).  Now, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has.  In rejecting that assertion of the provision in a motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the party seeking the protections of the provision has the burden of at least asserting facts justifying its application. See Unum Group v. Loftus, No. 16-cv-40154-TSH, 2016 WL 7115967 (D. Mass. December 6, 2016). READ MORE