Hatter v. Guardian Insurance Company
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║ LARRY L. HATTER, ║ ║ Plaintiff, ║ 1:18-cv-00041 ║ v. ║ ║ GUARDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ║ ║ Defendant. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Kye Walker, Esq. Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Response to Motion for Leave to File Ex Parte Submission (ECF No. 39), which the Court has characterized as a Motion for Reconsideration and will hereinafter refer to as such. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the said motion (ECF No. 41), and Defendant filed a reply thereto (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff’s response to the immediate motion revealed to Defendant that Plaintiff sought ex parte leave to file a motion to withdraw as counsel, which it did in fact do after the Court granted it leave to do so. See ECF No. 37. Plaintiff’s counsel sought to file that motion ex parte, because “[t]he information contained in [that] motion references attorney- client communications, which should be reviewed by the Court in camera.” ECF No. 35. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_18-cv-00041/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_18-cv-00041-1.pdf
SHA-256 c7e4a8144eec2639ba52db60751b6fb1520e91b3ca60b1e65d45d12a3fefab18
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-c7e4a8144eec
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║ LARRY L. HATTER, ║ ║ Plaintiff, ║ 1:18-cv-00041 ║ v. ║ ║ GUARDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ║ ║ Defendant. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Kye Walker, Esq. Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Response to Motion for Leave to File Ex Parte Submission (ECF No. 39), which the Court has characterized as a Motion for Reconsideration and will hereinafter refer to as such. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the said motion (ECF No. 41), and Defendant filed a reply thereto (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff’s response to the immediate motion revealed to Defendant that Plaintiff sought ex parte leave to file a motion to withdraw as counsel, which it did in fact do after the Court granted it leave to do so. See ECF No. 37. Plaintiff’s counsel sought to file that motion ex parte, because “[t]he information contained in [that] motion references attorney- client communications, which should be reviewed by the Court in camera.” ECF No. 35. Defendant argues that allowing Plaintiff to file this type of motion ex parte was improper, and the Court agrees, particularly considering that Defendant’s counsel had already been informed that Plaintiff’s counsel was anticipating withdrawal. See Def.’s Reply at Ex. 1. Case: 1:18-cv-00041-WAL-EAH Document #: 43 Filed: 05/10/19 Page 1 of 2 Hatter v. Guardian Insurance Company 1:18-cv-00041 Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration At the motions hearing—which the Court has rescheduled from May 13, 2019 to May 20, 2019—Plaintiff’s counsel shall thus set forth the reasons for withdrawal without exposing any attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff’s counsel, if necessary, may submit privileged communications for in camera review. See, e.g., Lewis v. Brown, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44884, at *6 n.3 (D.N.J. May 27, 2009) (addressing similar issue); Weinberger v. Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19859, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1998) (“[I]t is appropriate for a Court considering a counsel’s motion to withdraw to consider in camera submissions in order to prevent a party from being prejudiced by the application of counsel to withdraw”) (italics not in original). It is now hereby ORDERED: 1. That Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED. 2. That this Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 36) is VACATED. 3. That Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff (ECF No. 37) is UNSEALED. 4. That the Motions Hearing originally scheduled for May 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. (ECF No. 38) is rescheduled to May 20, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. ENTER: Dated: May 10, 2019 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:18-cv-00041-WAL-EAH Document #: 43 Filed: 05/10/19 Page 2 of 2