GTAT Corporation v. Fero
ORDER granting 62 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Mark A. Finkelstein. Acknowledgment of PHV Order due within fifteen days. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fifteen days, GTAT shall either explain why it needs five lawyers or notice the withdrawal of at least one attorney of its choosing. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 9/14/2017. (NOS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
SEP 14 2017
Clerk. u.s Courts
District Of Montana
Plaintiff GTAT Corporation moves for the admission of Mark A.
Finkelstein to practice before this Court in this case with Robert C. Lukes and
Alan F. McCormick to act as local counsel. Mr. Finkelstein's application appears
to be in order.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to admit Mark A.
Finkelstein pro hac vice (Doc. 62) is GRANTED on the condition that Mr.
Finkelstein shall do his own work. This means that Mr. Finkelstein must do his
own writing; sign his own pleadings, motions, and briefs; and appear and
participate personally. Counsel shall take steps to register in the Court's
electronic filing system ("CM-ECF"). Further information is available on the
Court's website, www.mtd.uscourts.gov, or from the Clerk's Office.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is subject to withdrawal unless
Mr. Finkelstein, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, files a notice
acknowledging his admission under the terms set forth above.
Given that GTAT already has two pro hac vice counsel and two local
counsel, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within that same fifteen (15) day
period, GTAT shall either explain why it needs five lawyers or notice the
withdrawal of at least one attorney of its choosing. Increasing the number of
attorneys on this case risks disrupting the efficient administration of this matter
and communication with the opposing party.
ftf'a; of September, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?