Royce v. Needle et al

Filing 424

MEMORANDUM Order: On October 18, 2016 Michael R. Needle, P.C. ("Needle P.C.") and Michael Needle ("Needle") individually had noticed up, for presentment that day, the three motions identified later in this memorandum order. This C ourt dealt with those motions in an extended oral statement that addressed the motions at length, resulting in the following rulings: 1. Dkt. No. 417, captioned "Motion To Vacate Sua Sponte Revocation of Admission Pro Hac Vice and Refer It to a Different Judge," was denied in the form advanced in that motion. Instead Needle individually was granted leave to appear pro hac vice as counsel for Needle P.C. on a basis limited to addressing the questions of law posed by the Answer (includ ing its claimed Affirmative Defenses) and the Counterclaims previously filed by Needle P.C. This Court rejected the oral motion by Needle to proceed with discovery in that respect before the pleadings issues have been resolved. 2. Dkt. No. 418, ca ptioned "Michael R. Needle P.C.'s Motion To Amend and Clarify the Court's 9/19/16 Order (Dkt. 403)," was also denied in the form advanced in that motion. Instead the preexisting order that Needle P.C. (which necessarily means Nee dle individually, for he is the sole member of that P.C.) should exercise active efforts to obtain independent counsel to act as co-counsel with Needle individually on behalf of Needle P.C. must continue on an active basis, with regular reports to th is Court in that respect. In substantial part, though not solely, that effort is required in light of the problems addressed by what has been referred to as the "lawyer-witness rule." 3. Dkt. No. 419, captioned "Michael R. Needle� 39;s Motion To Extend Deadline in the Court's 9/19/16 Order (Dkt. 403)," was granted as stated above as to Dkt. No. 418. In that respect Needle P.C. and Needle individually were ordered to refrain from the pejorative characterizations that have acted before now to chill the prospects of success in complying with their obligation to obtain co-counsel. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/19/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MERLE L. ROYCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL R. NEEDLE, P.C., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 259

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On October 18, 2016 Michael R. Needle, P.C. ("Needle P.C.") and Michael Needle
("Needle") individually had noticed up, for presentment that day, the three motions identified
later in this memorandum order. This Court dealt with those motions in an extended oral
statement that addressed the motions at length, resulting in the following rulings:
1.

Dkt. No. 417, captioned "Motion To Vacate Sua Sponte Revocation of
Admission Pro Hac Vice and Refer It to a Different Judge," was denied in
the form advanced in that motion. Instead Needle individually was
granted leave to appear pro hac vice as counsel for Needle P.C. on a basis
limited to addressing the questions of law posed by the Answer (including
its claimed Affirmative Defenses) and the Counterclaims previously filed
by Needle P.C. This Court rejected the oral motion by Needle to proceed
with discovery in that respect before the pleadings issues have been
resolved.

2.

Dkt. No. 418, captioned "Michael R. Needle P.C.'s Motion To Amend and
Clarify the Court's 9/19/16 Order (Dkt. 403)," was also denied in the form
advanced in that motion. Instead the preexisting order that Needle P.C.
(which necessarily means Needle individually, for he is the sole member
of that P.C.) should exercise active efforts to obtain independent counsel
to act as co-counsel with Needle individually on behalf of Needle P.C.
must continue on an active basis, with regular reports to this Court in that
respect. In substantial part, though not solely, that effort is required in
light of the problems addressed by what has been referred to as the
"lawyer-witness rule."

3.

Dkt. No. 419, captioned "Michael R. Needle's Motion To Extend Deadline
in the Court's 9/19/16 Order (Dkt. 403)," was granted as stated above as to
Dkt. No. 418. In that respect Needle P.C. and Needle individually were
ordered to refrain from the pejorative characterizations that have acted
before now to chill the prospects of success in complying with their
obligation to obtain co-counsel.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 19, 2016

-2-