United States of America et al v. Dean Foods Company

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 2/9/10 denying 3 Robert Pratt's request for waiver of the prescribed admission fee. See Order. (cc: all counsel)(nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
____________________________________________ U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, S T A T E OF W IS C O N S IN , S T A T E OF ILLINOIS, S T A T E OF MICHIGAN, P la in t iffs , v. D E A N FOODS CO., D e fe n d a n t. ____________________________________________ Case No. 10-CV-59

ORDER
O n January 22, 2010, plaintiffs filed suit against defendant. On January 25, 2 0 1 0 , Attorney Robert Pratt, chief of the Antitrust Bureau of the Office of the Illinois A tto rn e y General, applied for admission to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern D istric t of W isc o n s in , and asked that the court waive the $185 admission fee. Pratt a s s e rte d that waiver of the fee is appropriate because he is representing the State o f Illinois, the representation involves one particular matter, and that matter is a civil la w enforcement proceeding. Pratt bases his request on General L.R. 83.7(a)(3), w h ich reads, in pertinent part: "The judge . . . may permit an eligible attorney to p ro c e e d in a particular matter (pro hac vice) without payment of the prescribed fee." A s far as this court and the Clerk of the Court's office are aware, no attorney p rio r to Pratt has ever requested waiver of the fee pursuant to General L.R. 8 3 .7 (a )(3 ). The rule itself offers little guidance as to when such a waiver should be

g ra n te d . Presumably though, there must be good cause for such a waiver. Indeed, this good cause requirement is specifically articulated in General L.R. 83(c)(2)(C) ­ th e updated local rule which replaced L.R. 83.7(a)(3) as of February 1, 2010, the d a te the updated local rules became effective. Considering that L.R. 83.7(a)

p e rta in s to attorneys admitted for purposes of a particular case, it is difficult to u n d e r s ta n d why the fact that Pratt is being admitted for purposes of a particular case w o u ld also suffice as good cause justifying waiver of the fee. Indeed, under such a ra tio n a le , any attorney seeking admission under General L.R. 83.7(a) would be e n title d to fee waiver. Moreover, the fact that Pratt is representing the State of Illin o is or that the matter is a civil law enforcement proceeding does not constitute g o o d cause for waiver of the fee. A c c o r d in g ly , IT IS ORDERED that Robert Pratt's request for waiver of the prescribed a d m is s io n fee (Docket #3) be and the same is hereby DENIED. D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 9th day of February, 2010. BY THE COURT:

J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge

-2-