Vig v. All Care Dental, P.C. et al
Filing
65
ORDER GRANTING 55 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Ralph S. Goldberg. Ralph S. Goldberg terminated from case. Defendant Dr. Satpal K. Shikh is hereby ORDERED to advise the Court in writing, on or before 1/31/2013, whether she plans to proceed pro se . The Court GRANTED 63 Motion to Compel. Defendants shall produce their written response to Plaintiff's requested discovery on or before 2/8/2013. No extensions will be authorized. If Defendants fail to comply, they are admonished that they may be subject to sanctions for their failure to meet their obligations, to include a default judgment. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 1/18/2013. (jtj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
VIJAY K. VIG,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:11-cv-4487-WSD
ALL CARE DENTAL, P.C., a
Georgia Professional Corporation,
DR. SATPAL K. SHIKH, CEO and
60% shareholder of All Care Dental,
P.C.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant All Care Dental, P.C.
(“All Care”) and Dr. Satpal K. Shikh’s (“Shikh,” collectively “Defendants”)
Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel for All Care and Shikh [55] and Vijay
K. Vig’s (“Vig”) pro se “Opposition to Motion for Withdrawal to Defendant
Shikh’s Request to Extend Discovery Period and Request for Order to Compel
Defendants’ to Respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery and for Sanctions, and Request for
Expedited Ruling” (“Motion to Compel”) [63].
I.
BACKGROUND1
On November 16, 2012, the Court denied Defendant Shikh’s Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [10] and Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment [29]. (Order of Nov. 16, 2012, at 20). The Court
also vacated its August 17, 2012, Order granting a stay of discovery and ordered
that discovery shall conclude on December 31, 2012. (Id.). In light of a prior
dispute regarding Plaintiff’s ability to obtain documents from third parties, the
Court advised Plaintiff regarding how he could go about obtaining the information
he sought. (Id. at 20 n.11).
On December 10, 2012, Defendants’ counsel filed his Motion to Withdraw.
Defendants objected to the Motion to Withdraw on the grounds of not receiving
notice from him and requested that he not be permitted to withdraw until
replacement counsel can be obtained. (Defs.’ Mot. to Object Attorney’s Mot. for
Withdrawal [56] at 1). In light of Defendants’ counsel’s withdrawal, Defendants
also requested an extension of the discovery deadline to March 31, 2013. (Id.).
On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated in Fulton
County Jail on charges of aggravated stalking, terroristic threats, and simple
1
The factual background and procedural history regarding this action is more fully
recounted in the Court’s November 16, 2012, Order.
2
assault. (Pl.’s Notice of Dismissal of Criminal Charges and Out of Incarceration at
1, 3).
On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff was released from the Fulton County Jail after
the charges against him were dismissed when Shikh, as the “complaining
witness[,] failed to attend grand jury or preliminary hearing.” (Id. at 1, 4).
On January 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel and seeks an
order requiring “Defendants to immediately respond to Plaintiff’s discovery served
on June 7, 2012.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 1). Plaintiff opposes any extension of
the discovery deadline in this action, seeks an expedited ruling on his Motion to
Compel, and requests that the Court schedule this action for trial before February
15, 2013.2 (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 1-4).
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Defendants’ Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw
Local Rule 83.1 E. requires that, among other things, an attorney requesting
permission to withdraw as counsel for a party must file a motion “stat[ing] that the
attorney has given the client fourteen (14) days prior notice of the attorney’s
2
Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in his Motion to Compel pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37. Because the deadline for Defendants to respond to his
discovery request will be extended by this order, the Court denies Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions as premature. If Defendants fail to comply with their
discovery obligations, Plaintiff may renew his request for sanctions pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
3
intention to request permission to withdraw,” N.D. Ga. L.R. 83.1 E.(2)(b),3 and
must attach a copy of the notice to the motion, N.D. Ga. L.R. 83.1 E.(2)(b)(J). The
Local Rule further requires that this notice contain certain information about the
case and a party’s continuing obligations. Id. at E.(2)(b)(A)-(I).
Counsel for Defendants arguably complied with Local Rule 83.1 and any
deficiencies in his notice did not prejudice Defendants.4 Defendants’ counsel’s
Motion to Withdraw is granted.
3
Defendants’ counsel stated in the letter he sent to Defendants that Defendants
were being given ten (10) days prior notice to his withdrawal and could object
within that time. Under the prior version of the Local Rule, only ten days prior
notice was required. The Rule has since been revised to require fourteen (14) days
notice.
4
In addition to misstating the number of days notice in his letter to Defendants,
Defendants’ counsel also failed to advise them that All Care, because it was a
corporation, “may only be represented in court by an attorney, that [] attorney must
sign all pleadings submitted to the court, and that a corporate officer may not
represent the corporation in court unless that officer is also an attorney licensed to
practice law in the state of Georgia, and that failure to comply with this rule could
result in a default being entered against the corporate party.” N.D. Ga. L.R. 83.1
E.(2)(b)(I). Defendants’ counsel’s errors were harmless because the Court has
considered Defendants’ objections to his withdrawal and Defendants are also
aware that All Care “can not represent itself.” (Defs.’ Mot. to Object Attorney’s
Mot. for Withdrawal at 1). The Court finds Defendants have also had sufficient
time to find replacement counsel in the three weeks since they filed their objections
to the Motion to Withdraw.
4
B.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
On June 7, 2012, Plaintiff served his pro se discovery requests on
Defendants. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to comply with their
obligations.
A district court has broad discretion to control the pace of litigation and the
course of discovery to ensure that cases move to a timely and orderly conclusion.
Chrysler Intern. Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002); Lee v.
Etowah Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 963 F.2d 1416, 1420 (11th Cir. 1992); Am. Key Corp. v.
Cole Nat’l Corp., 762 F.2d 1569, 1578 (11th Cir. 1985). A litigant is required by
Rule 34(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to respond in writing to
requests for production of documents and to produce documents that are
responsive to the requests.
In light of the withdrawal of Defendants’ counsel following the Court’s
Order on their Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff’s
incarceration, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Defendants shall
produce their written response to Plaintiff’s requested discovery, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2), on or before February 8, 2013.5 No
5
To the extent Plaintiff complains of not obtaining documents from third parties
regarding his wages and hours worked, the Court provided instructions on how he
5
extensions will be authorized. If Defendants fail to comply, they are admonished
that they may be subject to sanctions for their failure to meet their obligations, to
include a default judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’
Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED.
Defendant Dr. Satpal K. Shikh is hereby ORDERED to advise the Court in
writing, on or before January 31, 2013, whether she plans to proceed pro se. Dr.
Shikh must also provide an address and daytime telephone number to the Court
where she can be reached. In the event new counsel is retained, Dr. Shikh shall
provide the name, address, and telephone number of new counsel and that counsel
shall file a notice of appearance on or before January 31, 2013.
With respect to Defendant All Care Dental, P.C., which is a corporation, it
may only be represented in the Court by an attorney. Local Rule 83.1 E(4).
Defendant All Care Dental, P.C. is hereby ORDERED, on or before January 31,
2013, to provide the name, address, and telephone number of new counsel and that
counsel shall file a notice of appearance.
could obtain that information in its November 16, 2013, Order. (Order of Nov. 16,
2012, at 20 n.11).
6
Failure to comply with this Order of the Court could result in action
prejudicing the interest of Defendants in this litigation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is
GRANTED. Defendants shall produce their written response to Plaintiff’s
requested discovery, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2), on or
before February 8, 2013.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2013.
_________________________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?