Tyler v. Timothy E. Baxter & Associates, P.C.

Filing 17

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Require Plaintiff to Comply with LR 83.20(f); denying 8 Motion to be Relieved of Local Counsel Rule. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AISHA TYLER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-13740
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY
E. BAXTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REQUIRE
PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH LR 83.20(f)
Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with Local Rule
83.20(f), which requires attorneys who are not active members of the State Bar of
Michigan to retain local counsel. Plaintiff requests that the court waive this
requirement.
Plaintiff filed this action on November 17, 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel is based
in New Jersey and is not a member of the State Bar of Michigan. Defendant
answered the complaint on January 31, 2018. The court held a scheduling
conference on March 1, 2018. On March 5, 2018, Defendant filed its motion
requiring Plaintiff to retain local counsel; Plaintiff filed her application to be
relieved of this requirement the same day. Subsequently, local counsel has
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff; however, Plaintiff continues to seek a waiver.

Local Rule 83.20 provides:
A member of the bar of this court who appears as
attorney of record in the district court and is not an active
member of the State Bar of Michigan must specify as
local counsel a member of the bar of this court with an
office in the district. Local counsel must enter an
appearance and have the authority and responsibility to
conduct the case if non-local counsel does not do so. On
application, the court may relieve an attorney who is not
an active member of the State Bar of Michigan of the
obligation to specify local counsel.
Id. Plaintiff seeks a waiver of the local counsel requirement to avoid additional
costs and expenses, which may serve to hinder resolution of the case. The court is
not persuaded that Plaintiff’s desire to avoid additional costs warrants a waiver of
the local counsel requirement under these circumstances. Plaintiff was aware of
the local counsel requirement, but delayed almost four months in seeking a waiver.
See Jones v. CMB Servs., Inc., No. 17-13304, Docket No. 10 (order for Plaintiff’s
counsel to secure local counsel dated 12/6/17). Moreover, courts in this district
have recognized the important purposes served by the rule:
If the only purpose for requiring local counsel were to
have “a member of the bar of this court have an office
within the district upon whom service of all papers may
be made,” E.D. Mich. LR 83.20(f), there would be no
sense in maintaining this requirement alongside the
recent requirement that all attorneys be electronic filers
and thus able to receive such notices, etc., virtually
instantly. There are, however, other purposes. Physical
proximity and accessibility for case preparation events
(e.g., depositions) is one; ready availability to the court
for conferences or hearings is another; familiarity with
2

the Local Rules and the local legal culture is yet another.
The ability of the court to easily monitor and govern the
behavior of its attorneys is not unimportant.
Belle v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 2009 WL 3757059 at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2009).
For these reasons, the court will require Plaintiff to continue to retain local
counsel. The court will deny Defendant’s request for costs and attorney’s fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to require Plaintiff to
comply with LR 83.20(f) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to be relieved of the
local counsel requirement is DENIED.

Date: March 21, 2018

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

I hereby certify that on March 21, 2018 a copy of this order was served upon
counsel of record using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3