Mohan Kutty, M.D. d/b/a The Center for Internal Medicine & Pediatrics, Inc., 2001-LCA-10 to 25 (ALJ Nov. 9, 2001)
U.S. Department of
Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002
Issue date: 09Nov2001
Case Nos.: 2001-LCA-00010, 2001-LCA-00011, 2001-LCA-00012, 2001-LCA-00013, 2001-LCA-00014, 2001-LCA-00015, 2001-LCA-00016, 2001-LCA-00017, 2001-LCA-00018, 2001-LCA-00019, 2001-LCA-00020, 2001-LCA-00021, 2001-LCA-00022, 2001-LCA-00023, 2001-LCA-00024, 2001-LCA-00025 ----------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of:
ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION,
Prosecuting Party
v.
MOHAN KUTTY, M.D. d/b/a THE CENTER
FOR INTERNAL MEDICINE AND
PEDIATRICS, INC., et al.,
Respondents
------------------------------------------------------
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL'S REQUEST
FOR FILING UNDER SEAL AND DENYING MOTION TO POSTPONE SCHEDULE
PENDING RESOLUTION OF WITHDRAWAL ISSUE
This matter is before me on Respondent's counsel's Notice of Intent to Withdraw as Respondent's Counsel, and the Administrator's Response to the Notice. Counsel for Respondents have indicated their intention to withdraw as counsel. The Administrator opposes the "request" to withdraw on the grounds that no reason has been provided, no supporting documentation has been filed, trial (scheduled to resume on November 26, 2001) will be disrupted, and the Administrator will be prejudiced by withdrawal of counsel if trial is delayed. On October 25, 2001, I issued an Order to Show Cause whether Counsel for Respondents Should be Permitted to Withdraw their Appearance and ordered that Respondent's counsel should not withdraw, absent an appearance from substitute counsel and without a showing in support of their Notice. Respondent's Counsel in their Reply to the Administrator's Response indicate that they are unable to disclose their reason for withdrawal because to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege. Additionally, Respondent's counsel argue that they are not required to seek permission to withdraw and that 29 C.F.R. § 18.29 does not provide a mechanism to exercise discretion to deny the notice. See Respondent's Counsel's Reply to Administrator's Response at 2. The Administrator filed a Response to Respondent's Counsel's Reply and Respondent's Counsel offered to submit withdrawal materials under seal for in camera review. In its offer, Respondent's Counsel request filing under seal and that the materials be reviewed in camera because making the Administrator privy to this information would be prejudicial to the Respondents. Respondent's Counsel also filed a Motion to Postpone Schedule Pending Resolution of Withdrawal Issue.
[Page 2]
This claim is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1182(n) and the regulations issued thereunder. Moreover, the rules governing practice and procedure are provided for under 20 C.F.R. § 655.825(a) and part 18 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the authority of an administrative law judge is provided for under 29 C.F.R. § 18.29.
1Respondent's Counsel refer, in error, to § 13.34(g) in their filings.
2I also looked to other ALJ decisions and orders that referred to the local rules in deciding the procedures for the withdrawal of counsel. See Decision and Order Denying Plea in Abatement and Denying Withdrawal of Counsel, 1999 BLA 485 and 1999 BLA 0551 (applying the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and denied counsel's request for withdrawal because it would have had an adverse effect and prejudice the client).