Stringer v. SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC
- Vskocil
- 1:25-cv-00670
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stringer v. Simon & Shuster, Judge Vskocil denied without prejudice Stringer’s request for pro bono counsel because the case was too early to assess its merits.
Vickie M. Stringer’s request for a volunteer lawyer was denied without prejudice; the opinion does not state a ruling on the underlying copyright claims.
What happened
Vickie M. Stringer, representing herself in Stringer v. Simon & Shuster, asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for her copyright action. She said she needed help calculating damages, performing accounting work, and responding to any attempt by the defendant to challenge a default.
Stringer said that a lawyer who had represented her in a related matter no longer practiced copyright law and declined to represent her. She also said she had contacted OSU legal student affairs and sent letters and emails to various law firms.
The court denied Stringer’s request without prejudice because the case was at too early a stage for the court to evaluate its merits. Judge Mary Kay Vskocil entered the order on May 28, 2025.
The detailed version
- Stringer v. SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC · No. 1:25-cv-00670
- Vskocil
- May 28, 2025
Background
Vickie M. Stringer, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application asking the court to request pro bono counsel—an attorney who would volunteer to represent her. Stringer described the case as involving copyright damages and said the defendant might seek to set aside a default.
Request for Counsel
Stringer said she lacked the expertise to calculate and present copyright damages, conduct the necessary accounting analysis, or effectively respond to motions challenging the default. She stated that the defendant was a major publishing corporation likely to retain experienced counsel if it challenged the default, placing her at a disadvantage without representation.
Stringer reported that James W. Wiggin, who had represented her in a related matter, declined because he no longer practiced copyright law. She also reported contacting OSU legal student affairs and sending letters and emails to various law firms. The opinion does not provide further details about those contacts.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court stated that, when considering an indigent litigant’s request for counsel, it considers the merits of the case, the person’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the person’s ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. The court said that the merits receive the most attention. Because the proceedings were too early for the court to assess the merits, it denied Stringer’s motion for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date.
Judge Mary Kay Vskocil signed the order on May 28, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.