CLERK OF COURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM By :----=4f"-t"t------ FRANCIS SHANE NAVARRO, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0230-25
Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER vs. GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND HYUN JOO NAVARRO, GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF Defendant.
Defendant Hyun Joo Navarro moves the Court for admission pro hac vice of her attorney,
Ronald "Chip" Herrington, Esq. Plaintiff Francis Shane Navarro opposes the motion. Hyun also
filed a Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines that raised issues concerning discovery.
After reviewing the filings and the record, the Court GRANTS the pro hac vice motion and
addresses the remaining discovery dispute raised in the scheduling order motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Francis and Hyun married on June 25, 2009, in Las Vegas, Nevada. V. Compl. Divorce
(June 25, 2025); Aff. of Hyan [sic] Joo Navarro (July 23, 2025). Francis filed his Complaint for
Divorce in the Superior Court of Guam on June 25, 2025'. He alleged that the parties separated
in Hawaii on August 31, 2018, and that the marital estate includes a house in Alaska and a Thrift
Savings Plan. V. Compl. Divorce (June 25, 2025).
At a motion hearing on August 15, 2025, Attorney Herrington appeared by Zoom and
noted his co-counsel's presence, Attorney John Grow. Hr'g at 2:01 PM (Aug. 15, 2025).
ORIGINAL DM0230-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Page2 ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF
Attorney Herrington told the Court he expected to complete his pro hac vice application within
three weeks. Id. at 2:04 PM.
On July 30, 2025, the real estate agent handling the Alaska property sale emailed
Attorney Grow and asked that the proceeds from the sale be placed in his trust account according
to the request of both parties. Pl. 's Opp'n Mot. Admis. Pro Hae Vice, Ex. 2 (Feb. 5, 2026).
Attorney Grow responded immediately and consented, although his email account displayed the
name, "Davida Williams." Id. The proceeds were later transferred to Attorney Grow's trust
account on August 9, 2025. Id., Ex. 3.
At a scheduling conference on October 15, 2025, Attorney Herrington again appeared for
Hyun, along with Attorney Ray Haddock of Guam. Hr'g (Oct. 15, 2025). Attorney Herrington
told the Court that he had not yet filed his pro hac vice application because he had only then
secured local counsel. Id. at 10:08 AM. Attorney Haddock entered his appearance on November
4, 2025. Entry of Appearance (Nov. 4, 2025). Attorney Herrington did not file the present pro
hac vice motion until January 26, 2026. Def. 's Mot. Admis. Pro Hae Vice (Jan. 26, 2026). On
February 2, 2026, Hyun moved to extend the scheduling order deadlines, explaining that the
delay in Attorney Herrington's admission had affected local counsel's ability to participate fully
in discovery. Mot. Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines (Feb. 2, 2026).
Francis opposed both motions. As to pro hac vice, he argues that the record was unclear
regarding the relationship between Attorneys Herrington and Grow, that Attorney Grow's use of
the name "Davida Williams" added confusion, that the attorneys' addresses did not align, and
that Attorney Grow held the Alaska sale proceeds in trust in Alabama. Pl. 's Opp'n Mot. Admis.
Pro Hae Vice. As to the request concerning the schedule, Francis argued that Hyun did not act
diligently before the discovery deadline and had not shown good cause to extend the schedule. DM0230-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Page 3 ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF
Id. In reply, Hyun further argued that Francis had not provided initial disclosures and had
withheld information concerning his military retirement benefits. Def. 's Reply in Supp. Mot.
Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines (Mar. 6, 2026).
On March 31, 2026, the Court vacated the April 1, 2026 status hearing and all trial and
pretrial deadlines, which rendered moot the request to modify the schedule itself. Order (Mar.
31, 2026). The parties' dispute regarding the retirement-related discovery, however, remained
unresolved.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Pro Hae Vice
Rule 8.0l(e) of the Guam Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law requires an
out-of-state attorney seeking admission pro hac vice to provide specified information, including
the attorney's residence and business address, the client's contact information, the jurisdictions of
admission, disciplinary history, prior Guam pro hac vice applications, familiarity with Guam
rules, and the name and bar information of sponsoring Guam local counsel. The rule further
provides that admission ordinarily should be granted unless the court finds a basis for denial,
such as prejudice to the administration of justice, prejudice to other parties, risk of inadequate
representation, or repeated appearances amounting to regular practice in Guam. Guam R.
GoverningAdmis. to Prac. L. 8.0l(e); see also In re United States, 791 F.3d 945,957 (9th Cir.
2015) (a denial of pro hac admission "must be based on criteria reasonably related to promoting
the orderly administration of justice" and must articulate a reasonable basis for denial).
Attorney Herrington's application states that he is admitted in Alabama and Mississippi,
remains in good standing in both jurisdictions, has never been suspended or disbarred, has not
previously sought pro hac vice admission in Guam, and has associated local counsel admitted in DM0230-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Page4 ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF
Guam. On this record, the only omission appears to be Ryun's full contact information. See
Guam R. Governing Admis. to Prac. L. Appendix A to Rule 8.0l(e)(l).
Francis 's objections do not establish a substantive rule-based defect in Attorney
Herrington's application. The concerns he raises about Attorney Grow, the Alabama trust
account, the "Davida Williams" email display name, and the internal division of labor between
Attorneys Grow and Herrington do not show that Herrington personally fails to satisfy Rule 8.01.
The application before the Court is Attorney Herrington's-not Attorney Grow's-and the
relevant question is whether he has met the admission requirements for this case. See Guam R.
Governing Admis. to Prac. L. 8.01. The Court remains concerned about the lack of clarity
surrounding Attorney Grow's role in the Alaska-sale proceeds, but that concern does not justify
denying Attorney Herrington's application on the present record.
The Court therefore GRANTS Attorney Herrington's application for admission pro hac
vice, conditioned on prompt submission of his client's full contact information, as required by
Rule 8.01. Admission pro hac vice is a privilege, not a right, but the record here does not support
denial under the governing rule.
B. Discovery Concerning Military Retirement Benefits
Because the Court later vacated the existing trial and pretrial deadlines, the portion of
Ryun's motion seeking an adjustment to the scheduling order no longer requires decision. What
remains is the parties' dispute over whether Francis must provide discovery and Rule 26
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CLERK OF COURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM By :----=4f"-t"t------ FRANCIS SHANE NAVARRO, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0230-25
Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER vs. GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND HYUN JOO NAVARRO, GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF Defendant.
Defendant Hyun Joo Navarro moves the Court for admission pro hac vice of her attorney,
Ronald "Chip" Herrington, Esq. Plaintiff Francis Shane Navarro opposes the motion. Hyun also
filed a Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines that raised issues concerning discovery.
After reviewing the filings and the record, the Court GRANTS the pro hac vice motion and
addresses the remaining discovery dispute raised in the scheduling order motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Francis and Hyun married on June 25, 2009, in Las Vegas, Nevada. V. Compl. Divorce
(June 25, 2025); Aff. of Hyan [sic] Joo Navarro (July 23, 2025). Francis filed his Complaint for
Divorce in the Superior Court of Guam on June 25, 2025'. He alleged that the parties separated
in Hawaii on August 31, 2018, and that the marital estate includes a house in Alaska and a Thrift
Savings Plan. V. Compl. Divorce (June 25, 2025).
At a motion hearing on August 15, 2025, Attorney Herrington appeared by Zoom and
noted his co-counsel's presence, Attorney John Grow. Hr'g at 2:01 PM (Aug. 15, 2025).
ORIGINAL DM0230-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Page2 ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF
Attorney Herrington told the Court he expected to complete his pro hac vice application within
three weeks. Id. at 2:04 PM.
On July 30, 2025, the real estate agent handling the Alaska property sale emailed
Attorney Grow and asked that the proceeds from the sale be placed in his trust account according
to the request of both parties. Pl. 's Opp'n Mot. Admis. Pro Hae Vice, Ex. 2 (Feb. 5, 2026).
Attorney Grow responded immediately and consented, although his email account displayed the
name, "Davida Williams." Id. The proceeds were later transferred to Attorney Grow's trust
account on August 9, 2025. Id., Ex. 3.
At a scheduling conference on October 15, 2025, Attorney Herrington again appeared for
Hyun, along with Attorney Ray Haddock of Guam. Hr'g (Oct. 15, 2025). Attorney Herrington
told the Court that he had not yet filed his pro hac vice application because he had only then
secured local counsel. Id. at 10:08 AM. Attorney Haddock entered his appearance on November
4, 2025. Entry of Appearance (Nov. 4, 2025). Attorney Herrington did not file the present pro
hac vice motion until January 26, 2026. Def. 's Mot. Admis. Pro Hae Vice (Jan. 26, 2026). On
February 2, 2026, Hyun moved to extend the scheduling order deadlines, explaining that the
delay in Attorney Herrington's admission had affected local counsel's ability to participate fully
in discovery. Mot. Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines (Feb. 2, 2026).
Francis opposed both motions. As to pro hac vice, he argues that the record was unclear
regarding the relationship between Attorneys Herrington and Grow, that Attorney Grow's use of
the name "Davida Williams" added confusion, that the attorneys' addresses did not align, and
that Attorney Grow held the Alaska sale proceeds in trust in Alabama. Pl. 's Opp'n Mot. Admis.
Pro Hae Vice. As to the request concerning the schedule, Francis argued that Hyun did not act
diligently before the discovery deadline and had not shown good cause to extend the schedule. DM0230-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Page 3 ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF
Id. In reply, Hyun further argued that Francis had not provided initial disclosures and had
withheld information concerning his military retirement benefits. Def. 's Reply in Supp. Mot.
Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines (Mar. 6, 2026).
On March 31, 2026, the Court vacated the April 1, 2026 status hearing and all trial and
pretrial deadlines, which rendered moot the request to modify the schedule itself. Order (Mar.
31, 2026). The parties' dispute regarding the retirement-related discovery, however, remained
unresolved.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Pro Hae Vice
Rule 8.0l(e) of the Guam Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law requires an
out-of-state attorney seeking admission pro hac vice to provide specified information, including
the attorney's residence and business address, the client's contact information, the jurisdictions of
admission, disciplinary history, prior Guam pro hac vice applications, familiarity with Guam
rules, and the name and bar information of sponsoring Guam local counsel. The rule further
provides that admission ordinarily should be granted unless the court finds a basis for denial,
such as prejudice to the administration of justice, prejudice to other parties, risk of inadequate
representation, or repeated appearances amounting to regular practice in Guam. Guam R.
GoverningAdmis. to Prac. L. 8.0l(e); see also In re United States, 791 F.3d 945,957 (9th Cir.
2015) (a denial of pro hac admission "must be based on criteria reasonably related to promoting
the orderly administration of justice" and must articulate a reasonable basis for denial).
Attorney Herrington's application states that he is admitted in Alabama and Mississippi,
remains in good standing in both jurisdictions, has never been suspended or disbarred, has not
previously sought pro hac vice admission in Guam, and has associated local counsel admitted in DM0230-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Page4 ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF
Guam. On this record, the only omission appears to be Ryun's full contact information. See
Guam R. Governing Admis. to Prac. L. Appendix A to Rule 8.0l(e)(l).
Francis 's objections do not establish a substantive rule-based defect in Attorney
Herrington's application. The concerns he raises about Attorney Grow, the Alabama trust
account, the "Davida Williams" email display name, and the internal division of labor between
Attorneys Grow and Herrington do not show that Herrington personally fails to satisfy Rule 8.01.
The application before the Court is Attorney Herrington's-not Attorney Grow's-and the
relevant question is whether he has met the admission requirements for this case. See Guam R.
Governing Admis. to Prac. L. 8.01. The Court remains concerned about the lack of clarity
surrounding Attorney Grow's role in the Alaska-sale proceeds, but that concern does not justify
denying Attorney Herrington's application on the present record.
The Court therefore GRANTS Attorney Herrington's application for admission pro hac
vice, conditioned on prompt submission of his client's full contact information, as required by
Rule 8.01. Admission pro hac vice is a privilege, not a right, but the record here does not support
denial under the governing rule.
B. Discovery Concerning Military Retirement Benefits
Because the Court later vacated the existing trial and pretrial deadlines, the portion of
Ryun's motion seeking an adjustment to the scheduling order no longer requires decision. What
remains is the parties' dispute over whether Francis must provide discovery and Rule 26
information concerning his military retirement benefits. The Court therefore turns to that
narrower issue.
Initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(l) must be made without awaiting a discovery
request and must include the identity of persons likely to have discoverable information and DM0230-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Page 5 ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF
documents the party may use to support claims or defenses. GRCP 26(a)(l). Hyun argues that
Francis has not provided initial disclosures and has withheld information about his military
retirement benefits, which she contends are a significant marital asset subject to equitable
division. Def. 's Reply Supp. Mot. Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines. Francis responds that
Hyun served written discovery too late and that no further relief should be granted. Pl. 's Opp'n
Mot. Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines.
The Court does not find a basis for broad additional discovery. The record reflects delay
in seeking relief connected to Attorney Herrington's admission, and that delay does not justify
reopening discovery in general. But the military-retirement issue stands on a different footing.
Hyun has identified a discrete category of financial information that appears to be within
Francis's possession or control and that should have been disclosed in initial discovery; Rule 26
is designed to prevent surprise and permit fair preparation for litigation. On this record, limited
additional discovery is appropriate.
The Court therefore will require any outstanding Rule 26(a)(l) disclosures to be served
and will permit narrowly tailored discovery concerning Francis's military retirement benefits.
The Court declines to grant broader relief or the evidentiary consequences requested in Ryun's
Reply. Any future request for sanctions, exclusion, or other discovery relief must be brought by
an appropriately supported motion under the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.
III. ORDERS
1. Hyun Joo Navarro's Motion for Admission Pro Hae Vice of Attorney Herrington is
GRANTED, conditioned on his submission ofHyun's complete contact information
as required by Rule 8 of the Guam Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of
Law. DM0230-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Page 6 ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY RELIEF
2. Upon submission of the required information, Attorney Herrington may appear pro
hac vice in this action, subject to all applicable rules, orders, and the continuing
responsibilities of associated local counsel.
3. Hyun Joo Navarro's Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines is DENIED AS
MOOT to the extent it sought modification of scheduling, trial, or pretrial deadlines.
4. To the extent Hyun Joo Navarro's Motion seeks relief concerning discovery related to
Francis Shane Navarro's military retirement benefits, that request is GRANTED to
the limited extent set forth herein.
5. Within 14 days of this Order, Francis Shane Navarro shall serve any outstanding
initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(l), to the extent they have not already been
served, and shall produce all non-privileged documents and information within his
possession, custody, or control relevant to the limited military-retirement discovery
authorized here.
SO ORDERED, 7 May 2026.
Appearing Attorneys: Daniel J. Berman, Esq., Law Office of Daniel J. Berman, for Plaintiff Ray Cruz Haddock, Esq., Pacific Law Professionals, LLC, for Defendant