Earlier this year, the District of Delaware implemented a new policy of requiring bar cards, or an order from the Court, to bring electronics into the courthouse.
Courthouse staff have accepted out-of-state bar cards just fine. But one recurring issue is that some states simply do not issue bar cards, or only issue them optionally. Not all out-of-state attorneys have them.
As a result, in the lead up to hearings, parties often file stipulations or unopposed motions for leave for various people to bring electronics into the courthouse. The Court usually—but not always—grants these.
This post is just a reminder that, in such stipulations and motions, it's best for parties to not just list the name of the people attending, but to also give an indication of why they are attending. We saw this in an order from Chief Judge Connolly this week in Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 23-101-CFC (D. Del.).
There, one party filed an unopposed motion for leave to bring personal electronics in for a list of people. The Court denied it because for lacking an explanation:
ORAL ORDER. It is HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Exemption (D.I. 71 ) is DENIED as the motion does not explain who the individuals seeking the exemption are or why those individuals need their electronic devices during the hearing. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 12/7/2023. (kmd) (Entered: 12/07/2023)
The party re-filed a nearly identical stipulation (a potentially risky maneuver), but simply added a short explanation of each individual's role after their name:
[Person one], Esq. – Lead Counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
[Person two], Esq. – Lead Counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
* * *
[Person three], Esq. – Inhouse Counsel at Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
It worked. The Court granted the revised motion without issue. The moral here is: tell the Court who the people are.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
