YERED, MD v. EASTERN MAINE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ANNE YERED, M.D., 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:23-cv-00284-LEW
)
EASTERN MAINE HEALTHCARE 	)
SYSTEMS, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW
Plaintiff’s counsel seek to withdraw from representing Plaintiff. (Motion, ECF No.
53.) Plaintiff objects to the request.
Plaintiff appeared in-person and her counsel appeared by videoconference for a
hearing on December 18, 2024.1
D ISCUSSION
Previously, Plaintiff’s prior counsel moved to withdraw from representation. 	The
Court granted the motion over Plaintiff’s objection. (Order, ECF No. 28.) 	As the Court
explained in its prior order, “[t]he grant or denial of an attorney’s motion to withdraw in a
civil case is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” Liberman v. Polytop Corp.,
2 Fed. Appx, 37, 39 (1st Cir. 2001) (quoting Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp. 780 F.2d 124,
125 (1st Cir. 1985) (quoting Washington v. Sherwin Real Estate, Inc., 694 F.2d 1081, 1087
(7th Cir. 1982)). (Order at 1-2.)
1 Defendants agreed the Court could conduct a hearing on the motion to withdraw without Defendants’
participation in the hearing. (Response to Motion to Withdraw, ECF No. 56.)
Case 1:23-cv-00284-SDN Document 62 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

In support of their request, counsel cite the following provisions of Maine Rule of
Professional Conduct 1.16(b): “[A] lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if: “(4)
the client insists upon taking action … with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement
… 	(6) the representation … has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client …, or (7)
other good cause for withdrawal exists.”2 After consideration of the information provided by
Plaintiff and counsel prior to and during the hearing, the Court finds they have a fundamental
disagreement regarding the management of the litigation such that the continuation of the
relationship between Plaintiff and counsel is not realistically possible. The Court, therefore,
grants counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The Court understands Defendants’ desire to bring this matter to a conclusion and
that the grant of this motion will likely result in a further delay of the resolution of the case.
The Court, however, believes it appropriate to afford Plaintiff a relatively brief opportunity
to secure new counsel before discovery in the matter continues. The Court, therefore, stays
further discovery until February 3, 2025. 	By separate order, the Court will grant in part
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order. Regardless of whether new counsel enters
an appearance for Plaintiff, discovery may resume on February 3.3
2 District of Maine Local Rule 83.3(e)(1) provides, “[t]his Court adopts as its standard for professional conduct
the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, as amended from
time to time by that Court.”
3 In their response to the motion to withdraw, Defendants assert that discovery has proceeded at a slow pace
“in large part to [Defendants’] inability to obtain [Plaintiff’s] position on its motion for the Court’s standard
protective order.” (Response to Motion to Withdraw at 2.) If Defendants cannot obtain Plaintiff’s position on
a proposed order, Defendants may nevertheless file an appropriate motion before February 3. After Plaintiff
has had the opportunity to respond to the motion, the Court will consider the merit of the motion.
Case 1:23-cv-00284-SDN Document 62 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

C ONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court grants the motion to withdraw. To permit
Plaintiff an opportunity to secure new counsel before further discovery is conducted, the
Court stays all discovery until February 3, 2025. The Court will issue an amended scheduling
order, which shall govern the future course of the case.
NOTICE
Any objections to this order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2025.
Case 1:23-cv-00284-SDN Document 62 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>