Muderis v. Hernandez

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 MUNJED AL MUDERIS, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00876-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order v. [Docket No. 209] 9| FRED HERNANDEZ, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Attorney Corey Beck’s motion to withdraw as counsel of 12] record for Defendant Fred Hernandez. Docket No. 209. Attorney Beck is Hernandez’s last 13] remaining attorney. Moreover, the Court is currently considering motion practice to hold 14] Hernandez in contempt for alleged discovery violations. See Docket No. 211. Courts routinely 15] refuse to allow counsel to withdraw when the case is on the precipice of significant discovery 16] events. See, e.g., PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, 2025 WL 2021632, at *2 (D. Nev. July 18, 2025) 17] (denying motion to withdraw given impending forensic examination); Kelly v. Cuomo, 2025 WL 18] 1489726, at *9 (D. Nev. May 23, 2025) (denying motion to withdraw as counsel given concurrent 19] issuance of order requiring discovery supplementation); S.E.C. v. Zufelt, 2015 WL 7176366, at *1 20] (D. Utah Nov. 13, 2015) (denying request to withdraw as counsel before upcoming depositions); 21] Smith v. Maritime, Inc. v. Lay Drilling Barge Akpevweoghene, 2014 WL 5306569, at *4 (W.D. 22|| La. Oct. 15, 2014) (denying motion to withdraw as counsel given pending spoliation motion). In light of the circumstances, the motion to withdraw is DENIED without prejudice to renewing at a 24] more appropriate juncture. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: August 1, 2025 27 AS Nancy J.Konpe 28 United States Magistrate Judge