Disability Rights Montana v. Gootkin

D. Montana

Disability Rights Montana v. Gootkin

DecidedJanuary 26, 2022

Docket2:15-cv-00022

StatusUnknown

This text of Disability Rights Montana v. Gootkin (Disability Rights Montana v. Gootkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Disability Rights Montana v. Gootkin, (D. Mont. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION

DISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA, CV 15-22-BU-DWM INC., Plaintiff, ORDER v. BRIAN GOOTKIN, in his official capacity as Director of the Montana Department of Corrections; JIM SALMONSEN, in his official capacity as Warden of Montana State Prison, Defendants.

Plaintiff moves for the admission of Kelsey C. Boehm to practice before this Court in this case with Alexander Rate to act as local counsel. (Doc. 94.) There

are already seven other attorneys representing Plaintiff in this case. It is the practice of this Court to limit the number of counsel in order to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; ef In re United States, 791 F.3d 945, 957 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A] court’s decision to deny pro hac vice admission must be based on criteria reasonably related to promoting the orderly administration of justice or some other legitimate policy of the courts.”) (internal citation omitted). A surfeit of counsel impedes this

mandate by, inter alia, confusing points of contact for the opposing party. Cf United States v. Ries, 100 F.3d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[C]ounsel from other jurisdictions may be significantly more difficult to reach . . . than local counsel.”). Nothing in this limitation prevents counsel from using his or her firm resources and internal assignments to assure adequate representation for the client. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that unless Plaintiff can show cause why additional counsel is necessary, Plaintiff is limited to the formal appearance of

seven attorneys of its choosing. See L.R. 83.1(d)(2) (requiring local counsel). Counsel must make any offer to show cause on or before February 2, 2022. DATED this □□ □□ of January, 2022.

United States District Court (

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION

DISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA, CV 15-22-BU-DWM INC., Plaintiff, ORDER v. BRIAN GOOTKIN, in his official capacity as Director of the Montana Department of Corrections; JIM SALMONSEN, in his official capacity as Warden of Montana State Prison, Defendants.

Plaintiff moves for the admission of Kelsey C. Boehm to practice before this Court in this case with Alexander Rate to act as local counsel. (Doc. 94.) There

are already seven other attorneys representing Plaintiff in this case. It is the practice of this Court to limit the number of counsel in order to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; ef In re United States, 791 F.3d 945, 957 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A] court’s decision to deny pro hac vice admission must be based on criteria reasonably related to promoting the orderly administration of justice or some other legitimate policy of the courts.”) (internal citation omitted). A surfeit of counsel impedes this

mandate by, inter alia, confusing points of contact for the opposing party. Cf United States v. Ries, 100 F.3d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[C]ounsel from other jurisdictions may be significantly more difficult to reach . . . than local counsel.”). Nothing in this limitation prevents counsel from using his or her firm resources and internal assignments to assure adequate representation for the client. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that unless Plaintiff can show cause why additional counsel is necessary, Plaintiff is limited to the formal appearance of

seven attorneys of its choosing. See L.R. 83.1(d)(2) (requiring local counsel). Counsel must make any offer to show cause on or before February 2, 2022. DATED this □□ □□ of January, 2022.

United States District Court (

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Disability Rights Montana v. Gootkin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disability-rights-montana-v-gootkin-mtd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack