Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-0818.
August 1, 2007
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2007, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 213) to strike/seal portions of a document filed by prior counsel for plaintiff, arguing that the second and third sentences of a letter (Doc. 174) filed by plaintiff's former counsel, Richard R. Gan, Esquire, violate the attorney-client privilege and are inflammatory and prejudicial to plaintiff, and the court finding that these sentences do not violate the attorney-client privilege and are not prejudicial or inflammatory, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 213) to strike/seal portions of a document filed by prior counsel is DENIED.
Plaintiff accuses Attorney Gan of professional misconduct and "deplorable and scandalous action." (Doc. 214 at 3.) Such accusations are without merit. Attorney Gan's letter (Doc. 174) was in response to the order of court dated February 9, 2007 (Doc. 171). The suggestion that Attorney Gan's courtesy closing, which reads "[i]f the court needs anything further from our office, please advise at your convenience," violates attorney-client privilege is wholly unfounded. See FED. R. CIV.P. 11(b).