actions and decisions in the Main Line suit, to review all of Merolla’s work product and time records in the case, and to call Merolla as an adverse witness at trial, to be cross-examined on these same issues. Because Merolla has not yet been deposed, however, there is no proof of the substance of Merolla’s deposition testimony. At this point, Richelo’s claim that he needs Merolla’s testimony to support his defense is based upon his mere speculation as to what that testimony might entail and is insufficient to serve as a basis to automatically disqualify Merolla. Even the trial court recognized that Merolla’s deposition testimony might only “potentially” be harmful to Clough’s case. Further, until Richelo deposes Merolla, Richelo is unable F2d 704, 707, 715-716 (III) (6th Cir. 1982) (<HOLDING>). Based upon the purposes behind Rule 3.7 and
holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment holding district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on summary judgment motion where inter alia plaintiff had been given repeated notices court intended to rule on motion and it was plaintiffs burden to rebut defendants evidence holding that the court was precluded from considering whether the district court had abused its discretion in ruling on defendants summary judgment motion before allowing plaintiff to conduct requested discovery where the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f and stating that  when a party does not avail himself of relief under rule 56f it is generally not an abuse of discretion for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment  citation omitted holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in immediately disqualifying plaintiffs attorney who had filed an affidavit in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment which made specific serious allegations of unethical conduct by defendants attorneys that were essential to plaintiffs claims and could not be proved with other evidence holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment