1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

 

SCOTT D. DALESANDRO and DIANE : 

NOONAN, on behalf of themselves and : 

others, : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : Case No. C-1-01 109 

 vs. : 

 : Judge Sandra S. Beckwith 

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

RECUSAL ORDER AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

 

Defendant International Paper hereby moves the court to reconsider its Order of October 

20, 2004 in which Chief Judge Beckwith recused herself in this action. Defendants infer from a 

pattern of recusals in other cases that the Recusal Order is based on the fact that the firm of 

Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP serves as local counsel for Defendant in this action. On the 

unique facts of this case, Defendant submits that the Court should allow Defendant to substitute 

new local counsel for the Graydon Head & Ritchey firm and reconsider the Recusal Order. The 

motion should be granted for the following reasons: 

1. First, this is a complex ERISA class action that was filed three years ago. The 

Court has devoted considerable time and effort to learning the background law and facts of the 

case. In order to decide the pending motions a new judge would have to spend a great deal of 

time reviewing the docket and familiarizing himself or herself with the governing law and this 

Court’s prior decisions. Substitution of counsel and reconsideration of the Recusal Order 

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 80 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 1 of 4
4 

would better serve the interests of justice than the delays and the loss of judicial economy that 

may occur if the case is reassigned. 

2. Second, substitution of another firm as local counsel in this action will impose no 

hardship on the Court, the parties, or the Graydon Head & Ritchey firm because the principal 

legal work for Defendant in this case has been done by the firm of McGuire Woods. 

3. Third, Defendant has identified substitute local counsel for this action. 

Defendants hereby seek leave to substitute Grant S. Cowan of Frost Brown Todd LLC for 

Michael Roberts of Graydon, Head & Ritchey as local counsel from this point forward. 

4. Were it not for the facts that (i) this case has been pending for three years, and (ii) 

this Court has invested a substantial amount of time and accumulated a substantial amount of 

expertise in the action, Defendant would not seek reconsideration of the Recusal Order. Under 

the current circumstances, however, Defendant submit that reconsideration is warranted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

/s Michael A. Roberts_______ /s Grant S. Cowan_________ 

Michael A. Roberts (0047129) Grant S. Cowan 

Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP Frost Brown Todd LLC 

1900 Fifth Third Center 2200 PNC Center 

P.O. Box 6464 201 East Fifth Street 

Cincinnati, OH 45201-6464 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4182 

(513) 621-6464 (513) 651-6745 

(513) 651-3836 (fax) 513) 651-6981 (fax) 

mroberts@graydon.com gcowan@fbtlaw.com 

Trial Attorney for Defendant Proposed Substitute Trial Attorney for Defendant 

 

W. Carter Younger (VSB 01147) 

James P. McElligott, Jr. (VSB 014109) 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

McGuireWoods LLP 

One James Center 

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 80 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 2 of 4
4 

Richmond, VA 23219 

(804) 775-4363 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 

 I hereby certify that on this 1st day of November 2004, a true and complete copy of this 

document was delivered via electronic filing to Counsel for Plaintiff, Theresa L. Groh, Esq., and 

John C. Murdock at Murdock, Goldenberg, Schneider & Groh, L.P.A., 700 Walnut Street, Suite 400, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202. 

 

 s/ Michael A. Roberts 

 

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 80 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

 

 

SCOTT D. DALESANDRO and DIANE : 

NOONAN, on behalf of themselves and : 

others, : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : Case No. C-1-01 109 

 vs. : 

 : Judge Sandra S. Beckwith 

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

__________________________________________ 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 

 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Recusal 

Order and Substitution of Counsel. It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. The 

Clerk is directed not to proceed with the reassignment of this case. 

 

Date:_________________ ____________________________________ 

 Chief Judge, United States District Court 

 

 

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 80 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 4 of 4