AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2007, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 20) to compel defendants' counsel to withdraw from representation of some or all of the fourteen defendants because of an alleged conflict of interest, and it appearing that plaintiff may have standing to assert a conflict of interest, see Pa. Water Works Supply Co. v. Bucks County Bank & Trust Co., Civ. A. No. 91-2814, 1991 WL 161473, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 1991) ("[C]courts allow the opposing party to raise conflicts of interest of counsel, because of the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process, and because the court, charged with the responsibility of supervising the bar, has the authority, in any event, to raise ethical questions sua sponte."), but see Shire Laboratories, Inc. v. Nostrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civ. A. No. 03-4436, 2006 WL 2129482, at *4 (D.N.J. 2006) (holding that "a party does not have standing to bring a Motion to Disqualify based on a material conflict of interest unless the party is either a former or current client"), but that no concurrent conflict of interest exists in the instant case, see MODEL RULES OF PROF'L RESPONSIBILITY R. 1.7, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Doc. 20) to compel defendants' counsel to withdraw is DENIED.