Lucas v. Total Security Vision, Inc. et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER granting 40 Counsel for Defendants Mohammad A Ullah and Total Security Vision, Inc's motion to withdraw from further representation, subject to counsel's best efforts to serve a copy of this Order on the Defendant s via U.S. Postal mail and email. Defendants shall retain new counsel on or before 6/25/2018. Defendant Ullah is reminded that a corporation cannot proceed pro se in federal court. If Mr. Ullah wishes to proceed pro se in his own defense, he must file a Notice of that intention on or before 6/25/2018. Discovery will be STAYED until 6/25/2018. Following 6/25/2018, Plaintiff may seek to take Defendant Ullah's deposition, if desired, by serving a proper notice of the s ame on new counsel, or alternatively, upon the pro se Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 5/25/2018. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
VINCENT LUCAS,
Case No. 1:16-cv-1102
Plaintiff,
Barrett, J.
Bowman, M.J.
v.
TOTAL SECURITY VISION, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 23, 2018, counsel moved for leave to withdraw from further
representation of Defendants Total Security Vision, Inc. and Mohammad Ullah,
asserting good cause as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Defense
counsel states that “[s]pecific evidence relied upon in support of the motion would be
detrimental to the interests of Defendants if made public.” (Doc. 40). Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition, arguing that counsel had not specifically averred that the
information would be detrimental “if disclosed to other parties,” as required under Local
Rule 83.4(c)(2). Plaintiff also argues that he would be prejudiced due to the anticipated
delay that would be caused by a change in counsel, and based upon pending discovery
disputes including Defendant Ullah’s alleged recent failure to appear for a deposition.
In order to address Plaintiff’s concerns and better inform this Court, the Court
directed defense counsel to file additional information ex parte, for in camera inspection
and review, a more detailed explanation of why counsel seeks to withdraw.“ (Doc. 42 at
1
2).
Defendants also filed a reply memorandum in further support of the motion to
withdraw.
In the reply memorandum, Defendants strongly dispute that Defendant Ullah’s
deposition was properly noticed, given the facts that: (1) Plaintiff initially indicated a
willingness to take the deposition by videoconference (since Defendant resides in
Florida); (2) Plaintiff’s notice instead provided only one week’s notice for the out-of-state
deponent to appear in person in Cincinnati, which is presumptively unreasonable; (3)
Plaintiff was well aware at the time he noticed the deposition that defense counsel was
having difficulty reaching Mr. Ullah; and (4) Plaintiff was aware that defense counsel
was filing a motion to withdraw on the same day the Notice was filed. The undersigned
agrees that the deposition notice was unreasonable under the circumstances presented
and did not comply with Rule 30(b)(1).
Based upon the documents reviewed in camera as well as the undersigned’s
consideration of the parties’ memoranda, the Court will grant the motion to withdraw.
Counsel has now clarified, and this Court has confirmed that the disclosure of the
information contained in the in camera documents would be detrimental to the
Defendants if disclosed to the Plaintiff. See Local Rule 83.4(c)(2).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The motion of counsel for Defendants Mohammad A. Ullah and Total
Security Vision, Inc. to withdraw from further representation (Doc. 40) is
GRANTED, subject to counsel’s best efforts to serve a copy of this Order
on the Defendants via U.S. Postal mail and email;
2. Defendants shall retain new counsel on or before June 25, 2018;
2
3. Defendant Ullah is reminded that a corporation cannot proceed pro se in
federal court. If Mr. Ullah wishes to proceed pro se in his own defense, he
must file a Notice of that intention on or before June 25, 2018;
4. Discovery will be STAYED until June 25, 2018. Following June 25, 2018,
Plaintiff may seek to take Defendant Ullah’s deposition, if desired, by
serving a proper notice of the same on new counsel, or alternatively, upon
the pro se Defendant.
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?