(movant must show matters are almost identical before court will disqualify counsel). In this case, the district court allowed the appellants to develop a voluminous record on the extent of C & B’s representation of Gettysburg. It found that C & B did not represent Gettysburg on matters related to the franchise agreement. It further noted that C & B’s representation of Gettysburg was handled primarily through Dennis, who in addition to being owner of appellee Historic was then a coventurer in appellant, Gettysburg. Thus, it concluded that C & B was not in a position to receive information that Gettysburg intended to keep confidential vis-a-vis Historic. We do not think these factual findings are erroneous, much less clearly so. Cf. Allegaert v. Perot, 565 F.2d 246, 250 (2d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the issue of whether these cases
holding that the principal test of substantial contribution is extent of benefit to the estate holding substantial relation test not even implicated in such a situation holding as long as the defendant has an adequate opportunity to impeach the reliability of a scientific test and the qualifications of the person administering the test due process is not implicated by a states good faith failure to preserve a sample for independent testing holding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an unusual situation invalidating use of five percent test holding that the fourth amendment is implicated by the withdrawal of blood to test its alcohol content