Filed: Aug. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is plaintiff's July 15, 2015 motion for substitution of counsel. (ECF No. 29.) In it, he asserts that "serious and irreconcilable conflict" exists between him and his attorney. ( Id. ) Plaintiff further asserts that "[t]he outcome desired by counsel, and the outcome desired by plaintiff, are at odds" and requests that the court appoint another attorney to represent him. ( Id. ) On August 12, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff's
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is plaintiff's July 15, 2015 motion for substitution of counsel. (ECF No. 29.) In it, he asserts that "serious and irreconcilable conflict" exists between him and his attorney. ( Id. ) Plaintiff further asserts that "[t]he outcome desired by counsel, and the outcome desired by plaintiff, are at odds" and requests that the court appoint another attorney to represent him. ( Id. ) On August 12, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff's c..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is plaintiff's July 15, 2015 motion for substitution of counsel. (ECF No. 29.) In it, he asserts that "serious and irreconcilable conflict" exists between him and his attorney. (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that "[t]he outcome desired by counsel, and the outcome desired by plaintiff, are at odds" and requests that the court appoint another attorney to represent him. (Id.)
On August 12, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to respond to plaintiff's assertions. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff's appointed pro bono counsel, Mr. Reinach, has filed a response. (ECF No. 31.)
Having reviewed this response, the court concludes that the conflict between plaintiff and his appointed counsel mainly concerns legal strategy and timing; that Mr. Reinach has experience litigating the issues in this lawsuit; and that he is diligently acting on plaintiff's behalf, although distance and scheduling issues have made in-person contact difficult. As it appears that plaintiff's interests would be best served by continuing to retain Mr. Reinach, the court will deny plaintiff's motion for substitution of counsel.1
Good cause appearing, the court will also extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. (See ECF No. 31.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's motion for substitution of counsel (ECF No. 29) is denied;
2. The discovery deadline in this action is extended to October 14, 2015.
3. The dispositive motion deadline in this action is extended to December 18, 2015.
