Barnett et al v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Stay. The Court will issue a briefing schedule after the Motion to Disqualify is adjudicated. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 7/24/17. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
MENDY BARNETT, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S )
SERVICES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 3:17-cv-155-HSM-CCS

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 the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Plaintiffs’ Deadline to Respond
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7]. The Motion states that the Defendants have filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and a Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Mendy Barnett’s counsel,
Agnes Trujillo. The Defendants assert that their Motion to Disqualify is based on a conflict of
interest resulting from Attorney Trujillo’s prior representation of Defendant Tennessee
Department of Children’s Services (“TDCS”) in proceedings against Plaintiff Barnett.

The

Defendants argue that permitting Attorney Trujillo to act as counsel and respond to the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss would violate the attorney-client privilege with respect to TDCS.
Further, the Defendants acknowledge that it would be unfair to the Plaintiffs to respond to the
Motion to Dismiss without counsel. Thus, the Defendants request that the Court stay the Plaintiffs’
deadline to respond to the Motion to Dismiss until after the Motion to Disqualify has been ruled
upon.

The Court notes that the Plaintiffs have not responded in opposition to the Motion, and the
deadline for doing so has expired. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2 (“Failure to respond to a motion may
be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the relief sought.”). Further, the Court finds good cause
to grant the Defendants’ request. See Bowers v. Ophthalmology Grp., 733 F.3d 647, 654 (6th Cir.
2013) (“A district court must rule on a motion for disqualification of counsel prior to ruling on a
dispositive motion because the success of a disqualification motion has the potential to change the
proceedings entirely.”). Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Plaintiffs’ Deadline to
Respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] is hereby GRANTED. The Court will issue
a briefing schedule after the Motion to Disqualify is adjudicated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2