TRANSCO MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION v. DICTATION SERV. GROUP

R. JORDAN, District Judge

On November 30, 2005, plaintiff's original counsel filed a motion to withdraw. [Doc. 26]. By order dated December 5, 2005, the court granted the motion. [Doc. 27]. That same day, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 28].

On June 27, 2006, replacement counsel made an appearance on behalf of plaintiff. [Doc. 53]. After a hearing conducted the following day, the court denied, with leave to renew, all of defendant's pending motions, including the summary judgment motion. [Docs. 54, 55]. The purpose of this ruling was to allow replacement counsel adequate time to familiarize himself with — and develop — this case.

It would appear that defendant misunderstood the court's ruling, as a virtually identical summary judgment motion was refiled a mere two days later. [Docs. 56, 57]. It is not possible for a replacement attorney to meaningfully conduct discovery in a mere forty-eight hours. Further, defendant's recycled summary judgment brief is riddled with factual and chronological inaccuracies, such as references to the pending withdrawal of plaintiff's original counsel, the upcoming March 2006 trial date, and inaccurate pretrial deadlines. For these reasons, defendant's summary judgment motion [doc. 56] is again DENIED, WITH LEAVE TO REFILE A CORRECTED MOTION AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME.

IT IS SO ORDERED.