Case Information
*0 FILED 2021 MAR 15 PM 3:08 CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT *1 Case 2:20-cv-00668-DBP Document 13 Filed 03/15/21 PageID.33 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Jill Harrison, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, PREJUDICE SECOND MOTION FOR PRO v. HAC VICE
Andrew Saul, Case No. 2:20-cv-668 DBP
Defendant.
Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Before the court is counsel Joel Ban’s Second Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for
Dana W. Duncan. (ECF No. 11.) The court denied the first motion for admission because of a
failure to follow the court’s new rule regarding pro hac vice admissions. (ECF No. 10.) Counsel
filed the second motion with the correct form. However, the court finds it is still lacking because
it fails to demonstrate good cause to grant an exception.
In December 2020 the court adopted Local Rule 83-1.1. This rule provides certain
restrictions on pro hac vice admissions. It states: “Pro Hac vice admission is not available to any
attorney who: … (iii) has already been admitted pro hac vice in 3 unrelated cases in the previous
5 years in this district, unless the court finds good cause for the attorney not seeking admission to
the Utah State Bar.” DUCivR 83-1.1 (2020). Mr. Duncan has been admitted in at least eight
unrelated cases in the previous 5 years. (ECF No. 9-1.) In seeking to establish good cause for not
seeking admission to the Utah State Bar counsel provides the following:
Counsel's practice is limited to Social Security Disability law and has no
application to Utah State Bar. Counsel only represents claimants in disability
proceedings. Due to the limited number of attorneys who handle such cases in
general and in Utah, Counsel has received a number of referrals for such claims.
Case 2:20-cv-00668-DBP Document 13 Filed 03/15/21 PageID.34 Page 2 of 2
(ECF No. 11 p. 2.) The court finds this is insufficient. Counsel offers no support for the assertion
that there are a limited number of attorneys who handle these types of matters in Utah or “in
general.” Without additional information the court cannot ascertain whether an exception should
be granted for a request that well exceeds the rule.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 15 March 2021.
Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge 2
