Quintal Research Group, Inc. -v- Nintendo

Filing 70

ORDER to William R. Hill, Carolyn E. Barreno, and Donahue Fitzgerald LLP to provide declaration for in camera review; setting hearing for September 11, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on August 28, 2014. (jsclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

QUINTAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NINTENDO OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00888-SBA (JSC)
ORDER TO WILLIAM R. HILL,
CAROLYN E. BARRENO, AND
DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP TO
PROVIDE DECLARATION FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW

12
13

Now pending before the Court is William R. Hill, Carolyn E. Barreno, and Donahue

14

Fitzgerald LLP’s (“Movants”) motion to withdraw as counsel in the above-captioned matter.

15

(Dkt. No. 67.) The motion is opposed by their client, Plaintiff Quintal Research Group, Inc. (Dkt.

16

No. 69.) Although Movants assert that grounds for withdrawal exist under one or more of the

17

grounds specified in the California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(C), Movants fail to

18

describe at all the reasons for withdrawal. The Court cannot rule on the motion until it is made

19

aware of the reason Movants are seeking to withdraw. See Aceves v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App.

20

4th 584, 592-93 (1996) (holding that a court may not “rubber stamp” a withdrawal and that

21

counsel has a duty to describe the “general nature” of the request “as fully as possible but within

22

the confines of privilege”); see also Zhixun Samuel Sun v. Rickenbacker Collection, 2011 WL

23

1344413, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2011) (“When addressing a motion to withdraw, . . . the court

24

must consider factors such as the reason counsel seeks to withdraw, the possible prejudice caused

25

to the litigants, and the extent to which withdrawal may delay resolution of the case.”)

26

By no later than Thursday, September 4, 2014, Movants shall file a declaration, for the

27

Court’s in camera review, setting forth the general nature of the basis for the motion. Movants

28

shall also serve the in camera declaration on Plaintiff. Plaintiff need not respond to the

1

declaration. The Court sets a hearing on the motion for Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 9:30

2

a.m.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2