Hatter v. Guardian Insurance Company

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║ LARRY L. HATTER, ║ ║ Plaintiff, ║ 1:18-cv-00041 ║ v. ║ ║ GUARDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ║ ║ Defendant. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Kye Walker, Esq.

Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq.

ORDER

Ex TPaHrItSe MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Response to Motion for Leave to File Submission (ECF No. 39), which the Court has characterized as a Motion for Reconsideration and will hereinafter refer to as such. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the said motion (ECF No. 41), and Defendant filed a reply thereto (ECF No. 42).

Pelxa pinatritfef’s response to the immediate motion revealed to Defendant that Plaintiff sought leave to file a motionSe teo withdraw as counsel, which it did in fact do after the Couretx gpraarntteed it leave to do so. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff’s counsel sought to file that motion , because “[t]he information contained in [that] mino ctaiomne rreaferences attorney- client communications, which should be reviewed by the Court ex parte.” ECF No. 35.

Defendant argues that allowing Plaintiff to file this type of motion was improper, and the Court agrees, particularly considering that Defendant’sS ceoeunsel had already been Hatter v. Guardian Insurance Company 1:18-cv-00041 Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration Page 2

At the motions hearing—which the Court has rescheduled from May 13, 2019 to May 20, 2019—Plaintiff’s counsel shall thus set forth the reasons for withdrawal without exposing any attorney-client priinv icleagmee. r Pal aintiff’s cSoeuen, ese.gl.,, iLf enwecise vs.s Barryo,w mnay submit privileged communications for review. W, e2in0b0e9r Uge.Sr. vD. ist.

LPEroXvIiSd e4n4t8 L8i4fe, a&t C*6a sn. .I3n s(.D C.No..J. May 27, 2009) (addressing similar issue); , 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19859, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 19i9n8 ) (“[I]t icsa ampeprraopriate for a Court considering a counsel’s motion to withdraw to consider submissions in order to prevent a party from being prejudiced by the application of counsel to withdraw”) (OitaRlDicEs RnEotD i:n original).

It is now hereby GRANTED 1. That Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 39) is Ex Pa.rte 2. That this Court’Vs AOCrdAeTrE GDra nting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion (ECF No. 36) is Ex Parte.

3. ThUaNt DSEefAeLnEdDan t’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff (ECF No. 37) is .

4. That the Motions Hearing originally scheduled for Ma y 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. (ECF No. 38) is rescheduled to May 20, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.

ENTER: Dated: May 10, 2019 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.