UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-06727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In UrthTech v. Gojo, Magistrate Judge Parker denied Aziz Awad’s counsel request without prejudice and struck his discovery filings because he was not a party or authorized to proceed without fees.
Non-party Aziz Awad, whose request for volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice and whose discovery filings were requested to be struck from the docket; the motion to intervene was not decided in this opinion.
What happened
In UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc., non-party Aziz Awad asked to join the case, requested a volunteer lawyer, and filed responses to the defendant’s document requests. This opinion addressed the lawyer request and discovery filings, not the request to join the case.
The court said Awad had withdrawn from the case when the amended complaint was filed in November 2022. It also said he had not received permission to proceed without paying court fees, which is generally required before a court considers a request for a volunteer lawyer under the relevant statute.
The court denied Awad’s request for counsel without prejudice, meaning the request could potentially be made again, and directed the Clerk to terminate it. The court also requested that the Clerk strike Awad’s discovery filings because discovery responses generally should not be filed on the docket. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the opinion.
The detailed version
- UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06727
- P. Castel
- Aug. 8, 2025
Background
Aziz Awad, identified as a non-party, had withdrawn from the action when the First Amended Complaint was filed in November 2022. He filed three relevant sets of papers: a motion to intervene at ECF No. 140, a request for appointment of volunteer counsel at ECF No. 146, and objections and responses to Gojo Industries, Inc.’s requests for production at ECF Nos. 152–153.
The opinion addressed only the request for counsel and the discovery-related filings. It stated that the motion to intervene would be addressed in a separate opinion.
Request for counsel
The court explained that civil litigants generally do not have a right to have the court supply a lawyer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a person who cannot afford litigation costs may request volunteer counsel after applying for permission to proceed without paying court fees. The court also explained that it may ask a lawyer to volunteer but cannot order or pay a lawyer to represent a civil litigant under that statute.
Under the Second Circuit’s framework, the court first considers whether the person is unable to afford the case and whether the claim appears likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court considers factors such as the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, whether conflicting evidence will require questioning witnesses, the complexity of the legal issues, efforts to find a lawyer, and whether counsel would likely produce a fairer result.
The court did not apply those factors to the merits of Awad’s request because Awad was not currently a party and had not been granted permission to proceed without paying court fees. It therefore held that the request was premature and denied it without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 146.
Discovery filings
The court stated that, as a general matter, responses to discovery requests should not be filed on the docket. It therefore requested that the Clerk strike Awad’s filings at ECF Nos. 152–153.
Disposition
The opinion denied Awad’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice and requested that the Clerk strike his discovery filings. It did not decide Awad’s motion to intervene. The opinion was issued by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.