Evans v. Northeast Ohio Cardiovascular Specialists, Inc.

Filing 26

Memorandum of Opinion and Order The Court grants Plaintiff Ann Evans' pro se Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 15 ). Defendant shall reply or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Ann Evans' pro se Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 15 ). Plaintiff's pro se Motion to disqualify attorneys is denied (ECF No. 15 ); Motion for extension of time of 30 days for Plaintiff to find alternative counsel is denied as moot (ECF No. 15 ); Motion for sanctions is denied (ECF No. 15 ); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion for Order (ECF No. 15 ); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion (ECF No. 20 ); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion (ECF No. 21 ); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion (ECF No. 22 ); denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff's pro se Motion (ECF No. 25 ); and denies pro se Plaintiff Ann Evans request (ECF No. 25 ). The Court grants the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 16 ) and denies as moot the Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff Ann Evan[s'] Pro Se Motion (ECF No. 17 ). Because the Court has ruled on Plaintiff Ann Evans' pro se motions, the request at ECF No. 17 is denied as moot. The Court grants Defendant and Attorney Morley's motion to retroactively seal the pro se motions and addendum filed by Plaintiff Ann Evans (ECF Nos. 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 , and 22 ), the responsive pleadings filed by Attorney Wido and The Spitz Law Firm (ECF Nos. 16 , 17 ), and the responsive pleading filed by Defendant and Attorney Morley (ECF No. 18 ). Having ruled on Plaintiff's pro se motions in this writing, the Court denies as moot Defendant and Attorney Morley's motion to require all future responsive filings to be filed under seal. Additionally, to the extent that Defendant and Attorney Morley seek leave to file opposition to Plaintiff Ann Evans' pro se motions and to file any opposition under seal, the request is denied as moot. If good reason is provided, the Court will consider Defendant's motion for leave to file under seal its response to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 15 ). Plaintiff's most recent filing, including attachments, ECF No. 25 , is hereby sealed by order of the Court, as it reveals settlement terms. See Order for additional information and requirements. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/17/2017. (JLG)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ANN EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTHEAST OHIO
CARDIOVASCULAR SPECIALISTS,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:16CV00613

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Resolving ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17,
18, 20, 21, 22, and 25]

Pending are pro se motions filed by Plaintiff Ann Evans (ECF Nos. 15, 20, 21, 22, and
25) and related addendum (ECF No. 19) seeking various forms of relief from the Court regarding
the terms of settlement in this action. Also pending are motions for leave to withdraw as counsel
(ECF No. 16) and to deem attorney-client privilege waived and for extension of time to file
response (ECF No. 17) filed by counsel for Plaintiff—Attorney Chris Wido and The Spitz Law
Firm, LLC. In addition, Defendant Northeast Ohio Cardiovascular Specialists, Inc. has filed a
motion for leave to file opposition to Plaintiff Ann Evans’ pro se motions under seal and a
motion to seal all responsive pleadings (ECF No. 18).
The Court has been advised, having reviewed the record, the parties' filings and the
applicable law. Moreover, on January 13, 2017, the Court held a Telephonic Status Conference
with Plaintiff Ann Evans, counsel for Plaintiff, counsel for Defendant, and counsel for Interested
Party Attorney Ryan J. Morley to discuss the status of settlement and the facts underlying the

(5:16CV00613)
pending motions on the docket. See Mins. of Proceeding. The Court deferred ruling on the
pending motions until the time of this writing to allow Plaintiff to confer with counsel and to
determine whether agreement on the terms of settlement to which Plaintiff takes issue can be
reached. Id. As of the time of this writing, pro se Plaintiff Ann Evans has informed the Court
that a settlement agreement has not been reached. See ECF No. 25.
The pending motions are ripe for adjudication. The Court rules as follow.
Plaintiffs’ Pro Se Motions
The Court grants Plaintiff Ann Evans’ pro se Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 15).
Plaintiff shall retain new counsel within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order. Unless and
until new counsel for Plaintiff makes an appearance, Plaintiff shall proceed pro se. A separate
Case Management Conference Scheduling Order will issue. If Plaintiff fails to comply with the
requirements of the Court’s orders and rules governing civil litigation, this action will be subject
to dismissal.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, Defendant shall reply or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff Ann Evans’ pro se Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 15).
With regard to the remaining pro se motions filed by Plaintiff Ann Evans, the Court rules
as follows:
•

Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to disqualify attorneys is denied (ECF No. 15).

•

Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for extension of time of 30 days for Plaintiff to find
alternative counsel is denied as moot (ECF No. 15).

•

Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for sanctions is denied (ECF No. 15).

2

(5:16CV00613)
•

The Court denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for
Order: to force attorneys to pay future litigation costs and not receive any fees;
find Notice of Settlement in Principle unenforceable; find any agreements
between current counsel and plaintiff unenforceable; find current attorneys
committed fraud; review and approve Confidential Settlement Agreement; and
grant Defendant seven (7) days to accept the Confidential Settlement Agreement
filed by Plaintiff Ann Evans (ECF No. 15).

•

The Court denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff’s pro se “Motion
not to seal records, Deny attorney requests to defend sanctions, Reopen Case, Find
the ‘Settlement in Principle’ non-enforceable, Add SUMMA/NEOCS retaliation
on the original complaint, future litigation costs to be paid by attorneys(firms),
and Impose sanctions, discharge all attorneys(firms) currently involved in case”
(ECF No. 20).

•

The Court denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to
“Please grant the Plaintiff Ann Evans access to electronic Pacer filing and
notification” (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff does not need an order of the Court to access
PACER. The PACER website is: https://www.pacer.gov/. PACER is available
to anyone who registers for an account, including pro se litigants. The link to
register for PACER is: https://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/pscof/registration.jsf.

3

(5:16CV00613)
•

The Court denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to
“Please add Attorney Brian Spitz and the Spitz Law Firm to the representing
Plaintiff Attorneys” (ECF No. 22).

•

The Court denies as moot or not otherwise actionable Plaintiff’s pro se Motion
“(1) to enforce settlement agreement after removing broad definition of company;
specif[y]ing agreement between NEOCS and Ann Evans (2) Reopen case if
agreement not enforced with retaliation added to claim” (ECF No. 25).

•

The Court also denies pro se Plaintiff Ann Evans’ request “to review all email
evidence, that [Plaintiff] can submit within 7 days if needed before making a
decision.” ECF No. 25 at PageID #: 230. The Court requires no further evidence
from Plaintiff to render its ruling.

Motions Filed by Attorney Chris Wido & The Spitz Law Firm
The Court grants the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 16) and denies
as moot the Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff Ann Evan[s’] Pro Se
Motion (ECF No. 17).
Attorney Chris Wido and The Spitz Law Firm, LLC have also moved the Court to deem
attorney-client privilege waived (ECF No. 17) on grounds that “Ms. Evans opted to attach several
privileged documents to her motion[s and] has made several specious, but serious allegations
against counsel” to which “counsel should be permitted to cite [along with] other privileged
documents in his defense” pursuant to Ohio R. Prof. Cond. 1.6 and Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.02
(A). Because the Court has ruled on Plaintiff Ann Evans’ pro se motions obviating the need for

4

(5:16CV00613)
a response from Attorney Wido and The Spitz Law Firm and their motion to deem attorney-client
privilege waived so that counsel may defend itself against the allegations contained in Plaintiff
Ann Evans’ pro se motions, the request is denied as moot.
Defendant’s Motions to Seal
Defendant Northeast Ohio Cardiovascular Specialists, Inc. and its counsel Ryan J. Morley
move the Court for leave to file their Opposition to the pro se motions filed by Plaintiff Ann
Evans and to file documents in support under seal. ECF No. 18. In addition, Defendant and
Attorney Morley move the Court : (1) to retroactively seal Plaintiff’s pro se motions, (2) seal any
responsive filings already filed by any party, and (3) require all future responsive filings to be
filed under seal. Id. Defendant and Attorney Morley also seek leave to file their Opposition to
Plaintiff’s pro se motions within two (2) business days of this Court’s ruling on their Motion to
Seal. Id.
While trial Courts strive to maintain open dockets by avoiding unnecessary sealing, at
times sealing is required to protect the interest of the parties and avoid disclosure of failed
negotiations. See Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589,
593-94 (6th Cir. 2016); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1178–79
(6th Cir.1983 ). The Court grants Defendant and Attorney Morley’s motion to retroactively seal
the pro se motions and addendum filed by Plaintiff Ann Evans (ECF Nos. 15, 19, 20, 21, and
22), the responsive pleadings filed by Attorney Wido and The Spitz Law Firm (ECF Nos. 16,
17), and the responsive pleading filed by Defendant and Attorney Morley (ECF No. 18) because

5

(5:16CV00613)
they reveal possible terms of settlement and otherwise do not aid in the resolution of the lawsuit
on the merits.
Having ruled on Plaintiff’s pro se motions in this writing, the Court denies as moot
Defendant and Attorney Morley’s motion to require all future responsive filings to be filed under
seal. Additionally, to the extent that Defendant and Attorney Morley seek leave to file
opposition to Plaintiff Ann Evans’ pro se motions and to file any opposition under seal the
request is denied as moot.
If good reason is provided, the Court will consider Defendant’s motion for leave to file
under seal its response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 15).
Plaintiff’s most recent filing, including attachments, ECF No. 25, is hereby sealed by
order of the Court, as it reveals settlement terms.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 17, 2017
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

6