Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw. (Doc. 47). The client did not consent to withdrawal but was served with the motion and has not opposed it within the allotted time. However, Defense counsel responded to the motion. (Doc. 48). While Defendant does not oppose withdrawal, it does oppose any further extensions of time in this case. Plaintiff's counsel replied and opposed this Court not granting further extensions. (Doc. 49). Notably, no request for extension of time is currently pending.

Upon the granting of the motion to withdraw, Plaintiff will be pro se. A protective order was previously issued in this case. (Doc. 46). Nothing in the motion to withdraw indicates that counsel has explained the significance of a protective order to Plaintiff, and the potential ramifications for breaching it. Thus, the Court will require counsel for Plaintiff to: 1) have Plaintiff read the protective order (Doc. 46); and 2) sign Exhibit A (Doc. 46 at 8). A copy of signed Exhibit A must be filed with the Court before any information marked confidential is released to Plaintiff (the non-confidential portions of the file may be released to Plaintiff at any time). [footnote omitted] If Plaintiff pro se declines to sign Exhibit A of the protective order, the portions of the file marked confidential must be returned to Defendant. Defendant shall release this discovery to new counsel for Plaintiff, or Plaintiff herself, if/when such person agrees to be bound by the protective order.

...

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (Doc. 47) is granted: Erin Ronstadt, Clayton Richards, and the law firm Ober Pekas Ronstadt, PLLC, are deemed to be withdrawn; the Clerk of the Court shall update the docket to reflect that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se using the contact information listed in Doc. 47-1. The file shall be released to Plaintiff as indicated above.

Plaintiff's former counsel has moved for relief from the order. (Doc. 51). In the motion, former counsel expressly states that they have advised Plaintiff of the details and obligations of the protective order. They then argue that Plaintiff should not have to sign Exhibit A of the protective order because, by its terms, the order did not require such an acknowledgement from parties. Defendant responded to the motion, and agreed with Plaintiff's former counsel's reading of the protective order, but nonetheless argued that Plaintiff should be required to sign Exhibit A.

Because the protective order, by its terms, does not require a party to sign Exhibit A, and because former counsel has cured the Court's concern about Plaintiff's understanding of the protective order, the Court will grant former counsel's motion. Thus,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief from order (Doc. 51) is granted to the extent that Plaintiff, pro se, is not required to sign Exhibit A of the protective order.

Dear Judge Teilborg:

Pursuant to the scheduling order (Doc. 22) in the above referenced matter, I am writing on behalf of Defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“MassMutual”) to request a conference call before the Court to discuss an ongoing discovery dispute between the parties. As set forth below, the dispute concerns three issues: (1) Plaintiff Lisa Berneking's refusal to sign Exhibit A to the protective order; (2) Plaintiff's failure to produce her medical records and tax returns; and (3) Plaintiff's refusal to discuss the scheduling of depositions. MassMutual has made several efforts to resolve these issues with Plaintiff and without involving the Court, but Plaintiff has refused to speak with MassMutual's counsel and has failed to provide a substantive response to MassMutual's written correspondence.

The first issue that MassMutual would like to discuss is Plaintiff's refusal to sign Exhibit A to the protective order. On July 13, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's former counsel's request for relief from a prior order that required Plaintiff to sign and file Exhibit A to the protective order because Plaintiff's former counsel “cured the Court's concern about Plaintiff's understanding of the protective order” by certifying that they had “advised Plaintiff of the details and obligations of the protective order.” (Doc. 53). Before the Court issued its order on the motion, but after MassMutual filed its response, Plaintiff sent MassMutual's counsel an email stating that “Judge T[ei]lborg denied Eric's request for a protective order related to discovery recently.” (See attached email dated July 7, 2020). Accordingly, contrary to Plaintiff's former counsel's representations to the Court, Plaintiff did not understand the obligations of the protective order — she did not even know that it had been entered. Rather than involve the Court, MassMutual made several attempts to get Plaintiff to sign the protective order so that it could ensure she understood its contents. (See attached emails dated July 9, 15, 20, and 28, and August 5, 19, and 24). Plaintiff has failed to respond to MassMutual's requests that she sign the protective order.

On September 1, 2020, the Court signed the following Order (in relevant part):

... With respect to whether counsel Erin Ronstadt lied to the Court about Plaintiff's knowledge of the protective order, counsel Eric Au is ordered to file a complaint with the State Bar of Arizona against Ms. Ronstadt that includes the same allegations Mr. Au made to this Court. Mr. Au must also include a copy of this Order with the complaint. To be clear, this Court is not making any finding on this issue whatsoever. Because the investigation of this issue will likely require an inquiry into attorney client communications, the bar is in a better position to investigate this issue and take any action the bar deems appropriate including determining Ms. Ronstadt did not lie to the Court. Within this case, this Court will take no further action on this issue.

First, Plaintiff is well aware of the protective order and knows there are potential ramifications for breaching it. In the Order, the Court states that “[n]othing in the motion to withdraw indicates that counsel has explained the significance of a protective order to Plaintiff, and the potential ramifications for breaching it.” (Id. at 1:23-25). However, Counsel provided the protective order to Plaintiff prior to withdrawal; imparted the importance of the order; identified the categories of documents subject to the protective order; and notified her of the possibility of sanctions for violating Court orders.

...

As affirmed previously [in the motion to withdraw] and again in the Certification accompanying this Motion, Counsel has imparted the significance of the protective order to Plaintiff.