Burket v. Hyman Lippitt, P.C.

Full title: JACK BURKET, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HYMAN LIPPITT, P.C., et al.…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jan 30, 2007

Case No. 05-72110, Case No. 05-72171, Case No. 05-72221 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. 05-72110, Case No. 05-72171, Case No. 05-72221.

January 30, 2007

ORDER

PATRICK DUGGAN, District Judge

This matter is before the Court in three separate, but related lawsuits alleging Exchange Act and state law violations: Burket et al. v. Hyman Lippitt, P.C. et al., Case No. 05-72110; Adams et al. v. Hyman Lippitt, P.C. et al., Case No. 05-72171; and Cliff et al. v. Hyman Lippitt P.C., et al., Case No. 05-72221.¹ Presently before this Court is the Hyman Lippitt Defendants'² 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) "Objections To And Appeal From" Magistrate Judge Majzoub's August 9, 2006 Order, which was filed on August 23, 2006. Plaintiffs in the three separate lawsuits have not responded and the time for response has expired. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(d)(2)(B).

1 On August 16, 2006, this Court issued an Order consolidating these cases for discovery purposes. Although the motions addressed in this Opinion and Order were filed before the consolidation order, they are identical in substance and were filed separately in each lawsuit.

2 "Hyman Lippitt Defendants" includes Defendant Hyman Lippitt, P.C. and individual Defendants Norman Lippitt, Douglas Hyman, Brian O'Keefe, John Sellers, and John Does #1-20. (Dfts.' Mot. at 1). In this Opinion and Order, when the Court refers to Defendants it means the "Hyman Lippitt Defendants" collectively.

On January 23, 2007, this Court issued an Opinion and Order denying in part Defendants' Objections to an Appeal from Magistrate Judge Majzoub's August 9, 2006 Order. In the January 23, 2007 Opinion and Order, the Court left unresolved Defendant's second basis for objection and appeal, in which Defendants contend that Magistrate Judge Majzoub failed to provide Defendants with a judicial determination on the use of "confidences" and "secrets"³ obtained during the representation of former, non-party clients. A hearing on Defendants' second basis for objection and appeal was held on January 26, 2007.

3 "Confidences" and "secrets" are defined by Rule 1.6 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.

For the reasons set forth at the hearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' second basis for Objection to an Appeal from Magistrate Judge Majzoub's August 9, 2006 Order is DENIED.