Ryan v. Tennessee Valley Authority (TV1)

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 9/08/2014. (copy mailed to pro se plaintiff) (KMK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JAMES RYAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-CV-356-TAV-HBG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff James
Ryan [Doc. 2], filed by Attorneys Robin L. Greenwald and Curt D. Marshall of Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C., and Attorneys Edward S. Ryan and Roger T. May of May & Ryan, PLC. This
motion was filed August 25, 2014, and was served upon Plaintiff in a manner consistent with
Local Rule 83.4.
Defendant has responded to the motion by stating that the Defendant does not object to
these attorneys withdrawing as counsel for the Plaintiff. [Doc. 3]. However, the Defendant
suggests that Weitz & Luxenberg be required to produce certain discovery materials that are in
its possession to avoid duplication of discovery later.
Ms. Greenwald and Mr. Marshall have not responded in opposition to the Defendant’s
proposals on behalf of Weitz & Luxenberg, and their time for doing so has expired, see E.D.
Tenn. L.R. 7.1. Mr. Marshall has represented to the Court that Weitz & Luxenberg does not
oppose providing Plaintiff with a copy of the materials Weitz & Luxenberg has in its possession.

The Court finds that the Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff James
Ryan [Doc. 2] complies with Local Rule 83.4, and therefore, it is well-taken. Additionally, the
Court finds that the Defendant’s suggestion that counsel provide a copy of the discovery in this
case to Plaintiff is well-taken. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff James Ryan [Doc. 2]
is GRANTED;
2. To the extent these materials are in its possession, Weitz & Luxenberg is
ORDERED to produce to Plaintiff a copy of:
a. All pleadings, motions, and orders, and all discovery, depositions, and
hearing transcripts in Auchard v. TVA, No. 3:09-CV-54 relating to
Plaintiff’s claims,
b. All transcripts and exhibits from the consolidated Phase I Trial, and
c. All written and electronic communications between Weitz & Luxenberg
and Plaintiff.
3. Upon completing this production, Attorneys Robin L. Greenwald and Curt D.
Marshall of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., and Attorneys Edward S. Ryan and Roger
T. May of May & Ryan, PLC are RELIEVED of their duties as counsel in this
case;
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to designate Plaintiff as proceeding pro se in
this case, until such time as counsel may appear on his behalf, and to enter the
contact information provided in the pending motion [Doc. 2 at 3];
5. The Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of this
Memorandum and Order; and

2

6. Finally, Plaintiff is ADMONISHED that he is deemed to be proceeding pro se.
Until he obtains substitute counsel, it is Plaintiff’s obligation to stay up to date on
the status of this case and comply with the deadlines set by the Court. Likewise,
if the Plaintiff elects to proceed in this case without an attorney, he is responsible
for complying with all deadlines set by the Court. Further, Plaintiff, like any
other party, will be expected to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Local Rules, and the Court’s Orders.

Failure to comply may result in

dismissal of Plaintiff’s case pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

United States Magistrate Judge

3