Barron v. Martel et al

Filing 105

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/23/16 ordering the motion to withdraw counsel 92 is granted. The motion to remove an inadvertently filed document 94 is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONNIE E. BARRON,

12
13
14

No. 2:10-cv-1567-WBS-EFB P (TEMP)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AFTER HEARING

M. MARTEL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter came before the court on May 18, 2016, on a motion to withdraw brought by

18

plaintiff’s counsel. In accordance with Local Rule 182, and for the reasons stated on the record,

19

plaintiff’s counsel’s motion is granted.

20

The court also addressed a motion to remove an inadvertently filed document brought by

21

plaintiff’s counsel. For the reasons stated on the record, the motion was denied. See In re

22

Seagate Technology, 497 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The attorney-client privilege

23

belongs to the client, who alone may waive it.”).

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1.

26

2. The motion to remove an inadvertently filed document (ECF No. 94) is denied.

27
28

The motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 92) is granted; and

DATED: May 23, 2016.