Vick v. Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:24-cv-00446
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vick v. Hudson Bay Master Fund, Judge Parker granted sealing but deferred counsel’s withdrawal motion, seeking Vick’s position and timing for finding new counsel.
Shadwrick J. Vick and the Basile Law Firm P.C.; the withdrawal motion remained unresolved, while the firm’s supporting papers stayed under seal.
What happened
In Vick v. Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., the Basile Law Firm asked to withdraw as Shadwrick J. Vick’s lawyer, citing a breakdown in their relationship. Vick did not consent, according to the firm. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Vinco Ventures, Inc., and the defendants had not appeared.
The court did not yet decide whether the firm could withdraw. Instead, it gave Vick until March 13, 2024, to submit a letter of no more than five pages stating whether he consented or objected, explaining any objection, and saying how much time he would need to find another lawyer if withdrawal were allowed. The court also required the firm to serve Vick with the order and its withdrawal papers.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion to seal. Papers supporting the withdrawal request referred to confidential attorney-client communications, so the court allowed the documents filed at ECF Nos. 22, 23, and 24 to remain sealed. The order did not resolve the withdrawal request.
The detailed version
- Vick v. Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd. · No. 1:24-cv-00446
- Katharine Parker
- Mar. 4, 2024
Background
The Basile Law Firm P.C. moved to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Shadwrick J. Vick. The firm asserted that an irreconcilable breakdown had occurred in the attorney-client relationship, but stated that Vick did not consent to the withdrawal. The firm also moved to seal its withdrawal papers because they contained sensitive and confidential information.
The motions had been addressed to District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order explained that Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker had been referred general pretrial supervision, which included these non-dispositive pretrial motions.
Motion to Withdraw
The court did not rule on the motion to withdraw. It gave Vick an opportunity to state his position. By March 13, 2024, Vick was required to provide a letter of no more than five pages stating whether he consented to or objected to the withdrawal. If he objected, the letter was to explain why and include any argument against allowing the withdrawal. He could also briefly describe his version of the events leading to the motion and state how much time he would need to find new counsel if the motion were granted.
Vick was required to provide the letter to the firm, and the firm was directed to email it to the court. The firm was also directed to ensure that Vick understood this obligation and to submit the letter to the court. Because the defendants had not appeared, the court did not request their position on the withdrawal motion.
The order advised that, if withdrawal were granted, Vick would have to obtain new counsel and would not be permitted to continue without a lawyer because the lawsuit was brought derivatively on behalf of Vinco Ventures, Inc.
Motion to Seal and Disposition
The court granted the firm’s motion to seal at ECF No. 21. It found that the supporting papers referred to confidential attorney-client communications and that making them public could prejudice Vick. The documents filed at ECF Nos. 22, 23, and 24 were therefore permitted to remain under seal.
The firm was directed to immediately serve Vick with the order and the papers supporting withdrawal, and to file proof of service. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 21. Judge Parker’s order resolved the sealing motion but left the motion to withdraw pending.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.