Opinion
Lead Case No. 1:11-cv-884 Case No. 1:12-cv-629
02-28-2013
CATHERINE J. ZANG, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOSEPH ZANG, et al., Defendants JAVIER LUIS, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH ZANG, et al., Defendants.
Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.
ORDER
The two above-captioned cases have been consolidated solely for pretrial purposes, with a pretrial telephonic status conference presently scheduled for Friday, March 1, 2013. However, on February 26, 2013, defense counsel for Joseph Zang and Joseph Zang Custom Builders in Case No. 11-cv-884, and Joseph Zang and Joseph Zang Builder in Case No. 12-cv-629, filed a motion seeking to withdraw from representation. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.4(c)(2), counsel's motion seeks to file a supporting memorandum and/or affidavit in camera and under seal.
If the evidence relied upon in support of the motion would be detrimental to the client's interest if disclosed to the other parties, the withdrawing attorney must move for an order that the evidence be filed in camera and under seal. The Court will not ordinarily grant a motion for leave to withdraw until the client has been given an opportunity to respond to the motion unless the motion demonstrates that the client agrees to the withdrawal and/or has terminated the services of the withdrawing attorney.Id. The plaintiff in Case No. 1:12-cv-629, Javier Luis, has filed a memorandum objecting both to the withdrawal of defense counsel and to counsel's motion to submit a memorandum and affidavit in camera and under seal. Plaintiff Luis asserts that there exists no basis for shielding the grounds for withdrawal in this case from other parties or the public.
Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, LR 83.4(c)(2) expressly permits the filing of evidence in camera and under seal when that evidence is deemed detrimental to the client's interest and relates to a motion seeking to withdraw from representation. There are many valid reasons to permit counsel to withdraw, including but not limited to a client's ability to pay for services, that may constitute evidence "detrimental to the client's interest." Nevertheless, a motion to withdraw, as opposed to a motion to substitute counsel, is not granted without close consideration by this Court, particularly when a case has been pending for some period of time. To that end, the Court may in its discretion require a prompt in-person hearing at which Mr. Zang and counsel are required to appear.
Based on the language of the original motion, the Court assumes that this is not a circumstance in which Mr. Zang agrees to the withdrawal of his counsel, or has voluntarily terminated their services.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The telephonic conference previously set for 11:00 a.m. on March 1, 2013 is hereby continued until 11:00 a.m. on March 15, 2013, with the parties to use the same conference number, access code, and security code as provided in the prior notice;
2. Counsel's motion to file, in camera and under seal, a memorandum and/or affidavit in support of their motion to withdraw from representation (Doc. 52 in Case No. 11-cv-884, Doc. 104 in Case No. 12-cv-629) is GRANTED, with counsel to file their supporting memorandum and/or affidavit in camera and under seal as soon as practicable, but not later than March 5, 2013. The portion of the same motion that seeks to withdraw from representation is TAKEN UNDER CONSIDERATION pending further Court review.
______________________
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge