Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Trans Ocean Seafoods, Inc.

Filing 228

ORDER granting counsel for Trans Ocean's 182 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, consistent with counsel's statements in their Reply Brief, the Court ORDERS that counsel continue representing Trans Ocean throughout the duration of post-trial motions practice; granting Trans Ocean's 225 Motion to Seal. The court will unseal counsel's suppl brief 227 at the conclusion of these proceedings signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,

10
11
12

15

ORDER

v.
SERAPIA MATAMOROS, et al.,

13
14

Case No. 15-1563-RAJ

Plaintiff,

Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
TRANS OCEAN SEAFOODS, INC.,

16

Defendant.

17
18
I.

19
20
21
22
23

This matter comes before the Court on counsel for Defendant Trans Ocean
Seafoods, Inc.’s (“Trans Ocean”) Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant (Dkt. #
182) and Motion to Seal (Dkt. # 225). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS
the motions.
II. BACKGROUND

24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION

On September 30, 2015, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) filed this action against Trans Ocean alleging federal claims for sexual
harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. Dkt. # 1 (Complaint). EEOC
ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

brought the action to seek relief for current and former employees of Trans Ocean,
Serapia Matamoros, Elena Perea Olea, Celia Sanchez Perea, and Maricela Dominguez. 1
Three of those employees, Serapia Matamoros, Elena Perea Olea, Celia Sanchez Perea,
joined the lawsuit as Plaintiffs-Intervenors alleging federal and state claims against Trans
Ocean for sexual harassment and retaliation. Dkt. # 12 (Intervenor Complaint).
The Court held a jury trial from March 27 to April 24, 2017. The jury reached a
partial verdict. The jury found against EEOC and Plaintiffs-Intervenors on all claims
except for the EEOC’s federal sexual harassment claim seeking relief for Serapia
Matamoros and Plaintiff-Intervenor Serapia Matamoros’ federal and state sexual
harassment claims. The Court declared a mistrial on those claims as to which the jury
could not reach a verdict.
Now, counsel for Trans Ocean seek to withdraw from representing Trans Ocean.
Dkt. # 182. EEOC and Plaintiffs-Intervenors oppose the motion. Dkt. # 190. In their
Reply Brief, counsel for Trans Ocean represent that they are willing to continue
representing Trans Ocean throughout the duration of post-trial motions practice. On June
14, 2017, the Court ordered counsel to submit supplemental briefing identifying the
specific reasons they seek to withdraw. On June 21, 2017, counsel filed a supplemental
brief containing these reasons. They move to seal the brief. Dkt. # 225. According to
counsel, it contains sensitive matters concerning their attorney-client relationship with
Trans Ocean.
III. DISCUSSION

21
22
23
24
25

Under Local Civil Rule 83.2, “no attorney shall withdraw an appearance in any
case, civil or criminal, except by leave of court.” LCR 83.2(b)(1). Whether an attorney
in a civil case may withdraw is a matter for the Court’s discretion. LaGrand v. Stewart,
133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court considers several factors when

26
27
28

1

The EEOC also sought relief for Saul Martinez, but later amended its complaint to
remove him as a charging party. Dkt. # 135 (Amended Complaint).

ORDER – 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

“evaluating a motion to withdraw, including (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought;
(2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might
cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay
the resolution of the case.” Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., No. C12-991-JLR, 2014 WL
556010, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2014).
Counsel for Trans Ocean are the third set of attorneys who have appeared in this
matter. On June 6, 2016, the Court permitted Trans Ocean’s first counsel to withdraw
and for substitute counsel to take their place. On January 10, 2017, the Court permitted
Trans Ocean’s second counsel to withdraw and for current counsel to appear. Counsel
represented Trans Ocean throughout trial, but now move to withdraw for professional
considerations that they seek to keep confidential from the public.
EEOC and Plaintiffs-Intervenors oppose the request. They plan to relitigate the
claims on which the jury deadlocked. They contend that permitting counsel to withdraw
will result in a prejudicial delay because Trans Ocean will need to secure substitute
counsel and, if they fail to do so, the Court will declare default judgment necessitating
motions practice on the appropriate amount of damages.
Having reviewed counsel’s reasons for seeking to withdraw, the Court finds that
professional considerations necessitate withdrawal. The Court agrees with counsel that
these considerations implicate sensitive matters concerning their attorney-client
relationship with Trans Ocean. Accordingly, the Court will not address the specific
details of these counsel’s reasons for seeking withdrawal in the instant Order. Along
these lines, the Court GRANTS counsel’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. # 225) their supplemental
brief. The Court will unseal the brief at the conclusion of these proceedings, including
any subsequent appellate proceedings.
In permitting counsel to withdraw, the Court finds that EEOC and PlaintiffsIntervenors have not made a sufficient showing of prejudice to warrant denying counsel
for Trans Ocean’s request. Although EEOC and Plaintiffs-Intervenors have cause for
ORDER – 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

frustration given Trans Ocean’s repeated changes of counsel, the Court is not in a
position to force a law firm to continue representing a client when professional
considerations dictate otherwise. Further, counsel represented Trans Ocean throughout
trial and will do so throughout the remainder of post-trial motions practice. As for EEOC
and Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ concern that Trans Ocean will default by failing to secure
substitute counsel, the Court is not persuaded that the prospect of default would cause
prejudice, harm the administration of justice, or unreasonably delay the resolution of the
case. Curtis, No. C12-991-JLR, 2014 WL 556010, at *4.
IV. CONCLUSION

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS counsel for Trans Ocean’s Motion
to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant (Dkt. # 182) and GRANTS their Motion to Seal
(Dkt. # 225). The Court will unseal counsel’s supplemental brief (Dkt. # 227) at the
conclusion of these proceedings. Consistent with counsel’s statements in their Reply
Brief, the Court ORDERS that counsel continue representing Trans Ocean throughout
the duration of post-trial motions practice. In the event that Trans Ocean secures
substitute counsel, current counsel are ORDERED to promptly transfer Trans Ocean’s
case file, including all discovery obtained in this case. If counsel seek to withhold any
portion of that case file, counsel must object within five (5) days from the date that
substitute counsel file a notice of appearance in this case.

20
21

DATED this 28th day of June, 2017.

22
23

A

24
25

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

26
27
28

ORDER – 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 5