1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER 

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES COMMODITY

FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. MAGGIO; TRADE RISK

MANAGEMENT, LLC (Washington); and

TRADE RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC 

(Oregon),

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-5766RJB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

(Dkt. 34). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion and the file herein.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to the complaint, the defendants sell a stock market analysis service known as

Sigma Band Charting through an internet website and materially misrepresent the risk and profitmaking ability of the service. Dkt. 1 at 2. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ conduct

violates the Commodity Exchange Act (“the Act”) and Commodities Futures Trading

Commission regulations. Id. at 7.

On April 6, 2007, the plaintiff moved to compel production of “[a]ll documents relating or

referring to any and all algorithms, or mathematical or statistical calculations, utilized to calculate

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 38 Filed 05/31/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER 

Page 2

or to determine the ‘Sigma Bands’ referenced or described in any and all versions of the website

www.traderiskmanagement.com.” Dkt. 28 at 1. The Court granted the motion but did not set a

time limit for compliance, recognizing the defendants’ concern that compliance would lead to

disclosure of trade secrets and the plaintiff’s apparent willingness to enter into a protective order.

Dkt. 33 at 3. The Court encouraged the parties to “work together to guard against the disclosure

of trade secrets and other proprietary information, meet and confer, attempt to resolve discovery

and scheduling issues in good faith, and use conference calls to chambers before filing further

discovery motions.” Id. 

Counsel for the defendants now moves to withdraw pursuant to Local Rule GR 2(g). Dkt.

34.

II. DISCUSSION

Withdrawal of attorneys is governed by Local Rule GR (2)(g):

(A) No attorney shall withdraw an appearance in any cause, civil or criminal,

except by leave of court. Leave shall be obtained by filing a motion or a

stipulation for withdrawal or, if appropriate, by complying with the requirement of

CrR 5(d)(2). A motion for withdrawal shall be noted in accordance with CR

7(d)(2) or CrR 12(c)(7) and shall include a certification that the motion was

served on the client and opposing counsel. A stipulation for withdrawal shall also

include a certification that it has been served upon the client. The attorney will

ordinarily be permitted to withdraw until sixty days before the discovery cut off

date in a civil case.

(B) If the attorney for a corporation is seeking to withdraw, the attorney shall

certify to the court that he or she has advised the corporation that it is required by

law to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this court and that

failure to obtain a replacement attorney by the date the withdrawal is effective

may result in the dismissal of the corporation's claims for failure to prosecute

and/or entry of default against the corporation as to any claims of other parties.

Local Rule GR(2)(g)(4).

The discovery deadline in this case is July 16, 2007. Dkt. 27. The motion does not

“include a certification that the motion was served on the client” as required by Local Rule GR

2(g)(4)(A). The motion is accompanied by a certification that Mr. Olbertz, counsel seeking to

withdraw, sent a notice to the defendant limited liability companies informing them of the

requirements of Local Rule GR 2(g)(4)(B). Dkt. 37. The notice is sufficient to put the defendants

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 38 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER 

Page 3

on notice as to Mr. Olbertz’s desire to withdraw. 

The plaintiff has responded to the motion and does not object to Mr. Olbertz’s withdrawal

but does ask that the Court address various issues when deciding the motion. Specifically, the

plaintiff asks that the Court require compliance with the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel (Dkt. 33). Dkt. 36 at 2. The plaintiff seeks production or a statement that the

defendants refuse to comply with the Order before the defendants’ counsel is permitted to

withdraw. Id. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in sanctions, as provided by the 

Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Local Rule GR 3(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).

The Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 33) did not specify a time for

compliance in the hopes that the parties would work together to guard against disclosure of

confidential information. See Dkt. 33 at 3. Absent a specific directive, the defendants were

nevertheless required to comply with the Order forthwith and may incur sanctions for failure to do

so. 

In addition, the plaintiff asks that the Court clarify that the withdrawal does not affect the

case schedule and require that any motion to change such schedule be made within ten days of the

withdrawal. Dkt. 36 at 2-3. The withdrawal of the defendants’ counsel does not alter the case

schedule. It is unclear whether the defendants have found new counsel, and ten days may be an

insufficient length of time to become acquainted with the case and move the Court for relief from

deadlines. The Court should therefore decline to require motions to change the case schedule, if

any, to be filed within ten days. The parties are cautioned that any delay in requesting a

modification of the case schedule may impact the Court’s willingness to modify deadlines in this

case.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Dkt. 34) is

GRANTED.

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 38 Filed 05/31/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER 

Page 4

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 31st day of May, 2007.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 38 Filed 05/31/07 Page 4 of 4