History
  • No items yet
midpage
UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc.
1:22-cv-06727
S.D.N.Y.
Aug 8, 2025
Check Treatment
Docket
Case Information

*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

8/8/2025 URTHTECH LLC, Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER ON APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL -against- AND DISCOVERY FILINGS 1:22-CV-6727 (PKC)(KHP) GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant .

KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

Non-party Aziz Awad, who withdrew from this action with the filing of the First Amended Complaint in November 2022 (ECF. No. 38), has filed a motion to intervene (ECF No. 140), a letter request for appointment of pro bono counsel (ECF No. 146), and objections and responses to Defendant’s requests for production (ECF Nos. 152 -153). This Opinion and Order addresses the latter filings, not the motion to intervene (which will be addressed in a separate opinion).

Unlike in criminal cases, in civil cases, there is no requirement that courts supply litigants with counsel. Hodge v. Police Officers , 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), an indigent litigant can request pro bono counsel. However, Awad has not applied to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Further, even if he were a party and granted the ability to proceed in forma pauperis the court has “broad discretion” when deciding whether to grant an indigent litigant’s request for representation. Even if a court does believe that a litigant should have a free lawyer, under the in forma pauperis statute, a court has no authority to “appoint” counsel, but instead, may only “request” *2 that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa , 490 U.S. 296, 301 – 310 (1989). Moreover, courts do not have funds to pay counsel in civil matters. Courts must therefore grant applications for pro bono counsel sparingly, and with reference to public benefit, in order to preserve the “precious commodity” of volunteer -lawyer time for those litigants whose causes are truly deserving. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc. , 877 F.2d 170, 172-73 (2d Cir. 1989).

In Hodge , the Second Circuit set forth the factors a court should consider in deciding whether to grant an indigent litigant’s request for counsel. 802 F.2d at 61-62. Of course, the litigant must first demonstrate that he or she is indigent, for example, by successfully applying for leave to proceed . The court must then consider whether the litigant’s claim “seems likely to be of substance” – “a requirement that must be taken se riously.” Id. at 60 – 61. If these threshold requirements are met, the court must next consider such factors as:

the indigent’s ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder, the indigent’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues[,] and any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination. ; see also Cooper , 877 F.2d at 172 (listing factors courts should consider, including litigant’s

efforts to obtain counsel). In considering these factors, district courts should neither apply bright-line rules nor automatically deny the request for counsel until the application has survived a dispositive motion. See Hendricks v. Coughlin , 114 F.3d 390, 392-93 (2d Cir. 1997). Rather, each application must be decided on its own facts. See Hodge , 802 F.2d at 61.

Because Awad is not currently a party and has not been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the motion is premature. Accordingly, it is denied without prejudice . The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 146. Further, as a general matter, responses to discovery requests should not be filed on the docket. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to stri ke Awad’s filings at ECF Nos. 152-153.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2025

New York, New York

KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge

Case Details

Case Name: UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc.
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Aug 8, 2025
Citation: 1:22-cv-06727
Docket Number: 1:22-cv-06727
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.
Read the detailed case summary
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In