Filed: Oct. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Request to Disqualify Coleen P. Schoch as Counsel of Record for Defendant Hughes and Jacobs" (Doc. 196) and Defendants' response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 200). I. DISCUSSION In support of his Request, the Plaintiff incorporates by reference his briefing in support of his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 151, 193). Plaintiff asserts that "[a]ll Attorney at Law employed by (`FBI"), (A.G"),
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Request to Disqualify Coleen P. Schoch as Counsel of Record for Defendant Hughes and Jacobs" (Doc. 196) and Defendants' response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 200). I. DISCUSSION In support of his Request, the Plaintiff incorporates by reference his briefing in support of his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 151, 193). Plaintiff asserts that "[a]ll Attorney at Law employed by (`FBI"), (A.G"), ..
More
ORDER
EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Request to Disqualify Coleen P. Schoch as Counsel of Record for Defendant Hughes and Jacobs" (Doc. 196) and Defendants' response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 200).
I. DISCUSSION
In support of his Request, the Plaintiff incorporates by reference his briefing in support of his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 151, 193). Plaintiff asserts that "[a]ll Attorney at Law employed by (`FBI"), (A.G"), and ("ADC") immediately withdraw as Counsel of Record due to `Major Conflict of Interest'" as "it would be improper for the investigative agencies to represent the defendants after they have monitored and read confidential legal communications between the plaintiff and his attorney at law." (Doc. 193 at 4). Ms Schoch is an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the United States Attorney's Office and represents Defendants Jacobs and Hughes.
Motions to disqualify counsel are "subjected to particularly strict judicial scrutiny." Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int'l Corp. v. Style Cos., 760 F.2d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 1985) (quotations omitted). Disqualification is a "drastic measure which courts should hesitate to impose except when absolutely necessary." Schiessle v. Stephens, 717 F.2d 417, 420 (7th Cir. 1983). To be justified, a motion to disqualify must be based on present concerns and not concerns which are merely anticipatory and speculative. In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings, etc., 658 F.2d 1355, 1361 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Court notes that Plaintiff is not represented by counsel in this case. Plaintiff's general assertions are insufficient to support disqualification of Ms Schoch. The Court does not find that Plaintiff has provided good cause to disqualify defense counsel. Plaintiff's "Request to Disqualify Coleen P. Schoch as Counsel of Record for Defendant Hughes and Jacobs" (Doc. 196) therefore will be denied.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Request to Disqualify Coleen P. Schoch as Counsel of Record for Defendant Hughes and Jacobs" (Doc. 196).
