Filed: Feb. 03, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2020
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . Currently pending is a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel in this case based on counsel's previously representation of Defendant Owners in many other cases. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 126) filed in response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Facts (ECF No. 125). That Notice provided additional factual information on the issue of whether Plaintiff's counsel does or does not still have Defenda
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . Currently pending is a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel in this case based on counsel's previously representation of Defendant Owners in many other cases. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 126) filed in response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Facts (ECF No. 125). That Notice provided additional factual information on the issue of whether Plaintiff's counsel does or does not still have Defendan..
More
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
Currently pending is a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel in this case based on counsel's previously representation of Defendant Owners in many other cases. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 126) filed in response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Facts (ECF No. 125). That Notice provided additional factual information on the issue of whether Plaintiff's counsel does or does not still have Defendant's confidential and privileged client files. The Court has considered all relevant filings and finds no further briefing is required. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). Based on its review and analysis, the Court finds and orders as follows.
Duty to Confer. There is no express requirement to confer on the Notice,1 but there is on the Motion to Strike. Although this failure alone is sufficient to deny the Motion — albeit without prejudice — the Court will consider it in this instance as Defendant has filed a response.
Motion to Strike. Plaintiff argues the Notice should be stricken under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) as "immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, and unsupported by any legitimate facts" but fails to analyze or discuss this standard. Regardless, the Court finds the information is relevant and Plaintiff admits the facts set forth in the email are true — as of December 2019, Plaintiff's counsel did (and perhaps still does) have some records belonging to Defendant. Whether those records are "privileged and confidential," as Defendant contends, and how they impact the requested disqualification of Plaintiff's counsel, however, the Court leaves for resolution in its order addressing the motion to disqualify.
Professionalism. On a final matter, there are accusations of personal attacks and emotionally charged language in the filings. The Court expects all parties to act with professionalism and reminds them that irrelevant and impertinent statements and attacks will not be countenanced. Where appropriate, they may be summarily stricken sua sponte by the Court.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 126) is DENIED.
