Uni-Systems, LLC v. United States Tennis Association, Inc. et al

Filing 169

ORDER re 167 . As explained in the attached Order, 167 Mr. Liddell's motion for admission pro hac vice is once again denied without prejudice. Mr. Liddell's inability to follow the rules of the Court in the simple matter of seek ing admission pro hac vice raises concerns about his ability to follow other rules, and also suggests inadequate supervision by the lawyers from his firm who have already appeared. Mr. Liddell may submit a corrected motion that complies in ev ery way with the rules governing pro hac vice admission and the conduct of litigation in this Court. Should he be unable to file a compliant application on his third attempt, Mr. Liddell will be denied admission with prejudice. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 11/17/2017. (Caggiano, Diana)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X

UNI-SYSTEMS,LLC,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

-against-

17 CV 147(KAM)
(CLP)

U.S. TENNIS ASSOCIATION,et al.,
Defendants.
X

POLLAK,United States Magistrate Judge:

On November 9,2017, William Liddell of Norton Rose Fulbright moved the Court for

admission pro hac vice to represent plaintiff Uni-Systems LLC in this matter. (See Liddell PHV
Mot., Nov. 9, 2017, ECF No. 167). On the same day, the Court denied Mr. Liddell's motion

without prejudice because his submission failed to comply with the Local Rules ofthe Eastern
District of New York and the undersigned's Individual Rules of Practice. (See Electronic Order,

Nov. 9,2017). In denying the motion,the Court referred Mr. Liddell to the appropriate rules, as
well as to the Court's September 13, 2017 Order in this case, which addressed repeated failures

to comply with the requirements for admission pro hac vice. ^Uni-Svstems v. United States
Tennis Ass'n. No. 17 CV 147, 2017 WL 4081904, at *1-3(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13,2017)(ECF No.
114).

On November 16, 2017, the Court received by mail papers from Mr. Liddell dated

November 14, 2017,.which he submitted "[i]n order to address the issues with [his] original

motion." The papers were not filed on the Court's CM/ECF system, and appear not to have been
served on the other parties to this litigation.

Electronic filing has been mandatory in the Eastern District of New York since 2004.
See In re Electronic Case Filing. AO 2004-08(E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2004). Similarly, the

undersigned's Individual Rules of Practice explicitly provide that "all submissions must be made
via the Electronic Case Filing("ECF")System." (Cheryl L. Pollak, Individual Rules of Practice
at 1).

Apart from counsel's failure to file electronically, the papers he has submitted in support
of his application for admission are still deficient in several respects. Specifically, the venue
listed in his affidavit,"Kings County, New York," does not match the location listed below his

signature,"Austin, Texas." The affidavit also does not bear the signature or seal of a notary

public. See, e.g.. Tex. Gov't Code § 406.013(a); N.Y. Exec. Law § 137. Furthermore, the
affidavit does not contain the information required by Local Civil Rule L3(c) because it does not
state: whether Mr. Liddell has ever been convicted of a felony, L. Civ. R. 1.3(c)(1)(a); whether

Mr. Liddell has ever been censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission or readmission by

any court,id R. 1.3(c)(1)(b); and what the facts and circumstances are relative to any affirmative
answers. Id. R. 1.3(c)(1)(d).

In the September 13,2017 Order, the Court explained that
Admission pro hac vice "is a privilege rather than a right[.]" One

important consideration for the Court in determining whether to
extend that privilege is whether an attorney provides "some
reasonable assurances that [he is] familiar with the Local Rules and
this Court's Individual Rules." United States v. International Broth,
of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 911

F. Supp. 743, 754(S.D.N.Y. 1996). An attorney's failure to follow
straightforward rules in seeking admission pro hac vice may
undermine the Court's confidence that such an attorney will comply

with the duties and responsibilities attendant to such admission.
Uni-Svs.. LLC v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n. 2017 WL 4081904, at *2. Mr. Liddell's inability to follow

the rules ofthe Court in the simple matter of seeking admission pro hac vice raises concerns

about his ability to follow other, more complicated rules, and also suggests that the lawyers from
his firm who have already appeared before this Court may not provide adequate supervision to
ensure such compliance.

For the reasons explained above, Mr. Liddell's motion for admission pro hac vice is once

again denied without prejudice. Mr. Liddell may submit a corrected motion that complies in
every way with the rules governing pro hac vice admission and the conduct of litigation in this
Court. Should he be unable to file a compliant application on his third attempt, Mr. Liddell will
be denied admission pro hac vice with prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum and Order to the parties either

electronically through the Electronic Case Filing(ECF)system or by mail.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 17, 2017

/S/ Cheryl Pollak
Cheryl L. Mlak

United St^ Magistrate Judge
Eastern District of New York