Young v. CITY OF MEMPHIS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
SYMARA A.C. YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:25-cv-2799-SHL-atc
No. 2:25-cv-2800-SHL-atc
v.
CITY OF MEMPHIS, MEMPHIS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ONTARIAN MALONE,
MARQUAVIUS WILLIAMS, and
MARTERRION BRISCO,
Defendants.
____________________________________
SHONDA R. WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND
OF LASUNDRA JOSEPHINE WHITE, A
MINOR, and JASMINE KINDS,
DECEASED MINOR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ONTARIAN MALONE, MARQUAVIUS
WILLIAMS, MARTERRION BRISCO, and
XAVIER HUNT,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF SHONDA R. WHITE’S MOTION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE
DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court are two motions for leave to appear pro hac vice, and Plaintiff Shonda
R. White’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance Her Deadline to Respond to the City’s Motion to
Case 2:25-cv-02799-SHL-atc Document 41 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID
<pageID>

2
Dismiss.1 Defendants City of Memphis and Memphis Police Department (the “City
Defendants”) oppose the pro hac vice motions. (ECF No. 40.)2 For the reasons that follow, the
pro hac vice motions are GRANTED.
Although the time for the City Defendants to respond to White’s Motion to Hold in
Abeyance Her Deadline to Respond to the City’s Motion to Dismiss has yet to pass, in the
interest of expediting the ruling on the City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and for good cause
shown, the motion is GRANTED. White’s deadline to respond to the City Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss is extended from December 1 to December 11, 2025.
BACKGROUND
These consolidated cases address injuries that Plaintiffs sustained during a May 6, 2023
automobile accident, including a fatality, which Plaintiffs allege was the result of a pursuit by
officers of the Memphis Police Department that was an unconstitutional violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (See ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-3, 12, 34; White Matter, ECF Nos. 1-1, 9).) On November 28,
2025, attorneys Joshua Levin and Stephen Weil, with the Chicago-based law firm Romanucci &
Blandin LLC, filed motions to appear pro hac vice in the White Matter. (White Matter, ECF
Nos. 22 & 23.) Levin attached a memorandum to his motion, asserting that White “has chosen to
retain additional counsel for this matter who specialize in civil rights litigation.” (White Matter,
ECF No. 22-1 at PageID 185.) Both Levin’s and Weil’s motions included the Court’s form for
1 The Motions were filed on November 28, 2025, in Shonda R. White, et al. v. Memphis
Police Department, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02800-SHL-tmp (the “White Matter”). (See White
Matter, ECF Nos. 22, 23 & 24.) On December 2, 2025, the Court consolidated that case with the
instant case. (See ECF No. 38.)
2 According to the certificate of consultation attached to White’s motion to extend her
deadline, the City had not articulated its position on that motion by the time it was filed. (See
White Matter, ECF No. 24 at PageID 200.)
Case 2:25-cv-02799-SHL-atc Document 41 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID
<pageID>

3
appearing pro hac vice, along with the required certificates of good standing, consistent with
Local Rule 83.4. (See White Matter, ECF Nos. 22 & 23.)
Before filing their motions, Levin and Weil emailed counsel for the City Defendants
seeking their position on their pro hac vice applications. (See White Matter, ECF No. 22-2.)
The City Defendants’ response to that email foreshadowed the position they eventually
articulated in their response to the motions. At bottom, the City Defendants opposed the
admissions based on Levin and Weil’s involvement in another matter in this Court, RowVaughn
Wells, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al., Case No. 23-cv-02224-SHL-atc (the “Wells Matter”).
The City Defendants explained that they object to the pro hac vice admissions because the
lawyers “have routinely violated the local rules through improperly sealing filings, improperly
possessing and handling sealed documents, publishing knowingly false information with regard
to the City’s insurance coverage (the only reason you avoided sanctions, according to the Court,
is that you took the misinformation down quickly, see ECF No. 463), and attempting to contact
the court ex parte.” (White Matter, ECF No. 22-2 at PageID 189.)
The City Defendants further suggested that Henry Miller, White’s counsel to date, was
“more than competent to pursue these claims on behalf of his client,” and allege that Levin and
Weil’s involvement in the White matter “appears to be a ruse in that the only conceivable reason
you are seeking to pro hac in the White case now is to get around the written discovery deadline
in the Wells case and to improperly expand the number of depositions you can take of the city
related to the Wells case. This appears to be a work-a-round in case you lose your motion to
increase the number of depositions in the Wells case[.]” (Id.)
The City Defendants elaborated on these issues in their response to the motion, asserting
that, in the Wells Matter, Levin and Weil “have engaged in numerous examples of conduct that
Case 2:25-cv-02799-SHL-atc Document 41 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID
<pageID>

4
is inconsistent with the Court’s standards for professional conduct as set forth in the Court’s
local rules.” (ECF No. 40 at PageID 301.) This includes filing numerous documents under seal
without having filed a motion to seal those documents, “unexplainably obtain[ing] and
mishandl[ing] sealed documents from the related criminal case,” and “recklessly permitt[ing] or
facilitat[ing] the publication of false information regarding the City’s insurance coverage.” (Id.)
Ultimately, the City Defendants assert that, because Levin and Weil have “repeatedly misused or
ignored the Court’s local rules and standards of professional conduct in the Wells Case, the
Court should not grant them leave to represent Plaintiff in this matter.” (Id. at PageID 302.)
The City also asserts that “[t]he only conceivable reason for the Proposed Pro Hac
Attorneys appearing in this case is to seek additional discovery against the City of Memphis and
the Memphis Police Department that might be prevented by the Wells case’s discovery deadline
and a court order denying the plaintiff’s motion for additional depositions.” (Id. at PageID 302.)
The City argues that, if Levin and Weil are allowed to appear pro hac vice on White’s behalf,
they “are likely to abuse the discovery process that is memorialized by the scheduling order in
the Wells case.” (Id.) To that end, the City Defendants alternatively request that, if Levin and
Weil’s pro hac vice motions are granted, “the Court exclude from the Wells Case any discovery
obtained in the White and Young cases after the close of discovery in the Wells Case.” (Id. at
PageID 303.)
For her part, White asserts that she is “unaware of anything in the record of this case or
the Wells case that would substantiate the City’s accusations. She can say, however, that she has
retained Mr. Levin and Mr. Weil to represent her in this case, and not for any purpose related to
any other case.” (ECF No. 22-1 at PageID 186.)
Case 2:25-cv-02799-SHL-atc Document 41 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID
<pageID>

5
ANALYSIS
Under this Court’s Local Rules, “[a]n attorney not licensed to practice law in the State of
Tennessee, but who is licensed to practice and is in good standing at the bar of the highest court
of any other state or the District of Columbia may be admitted specially for the purpose of acting
as attorney in a case in this Court.” LR 83.4(d). In addition to submitting certificates of good
standing from the highest Court of a state or the District of Columbia, and from a United States
District Court, attorneys seeking pro hac vice admission must also provide “a certificate that the
attorney subjects himself or herself to the jurisdiction of the Court and has obtained, is familiar
with and agrees to be bound by these Local Rules, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8 (Rules of
Professional Conduct), and the Guidelines of Professional Courtesy and Conduct[.]” LR
83.4(d)(1)(B).
Attorneys who comply with the requirements outlined in Local Rule 83.4(d) are routinely
admitted to appear pro hac vice in this Court. When the Court does deny motions to appear pro
hac vice, it is typically done without prejudice based on some deficiency in the pro hac vice
application, such as a failure to provide the Court with the required certificates of good standing.
At the same time, the Sixth Circuit has recognized that courts are vested with the discretion to
determine if pro hac vice status should be granted or revoked. D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Robson,
750 F.2d 31, 34 (6th Cir. 1984) (explaining that permission to appear pro hac vice is privilege,
the granting of which is within sound discretion of presiding judge) (citing Thomas v. Cassidy,
249 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1957) (per curiam), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 958 (1958)). Moreover,
attorneys who are admitted pro hac vice can have their orders of special admission rescinded for
several reasons, including failure to comply with the Local Rules or any misconduct. LR
83.4(d)(3).
Case 2:25-cv-02799-SHL-atc Document 41 Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID
<pageID>

6
Although the City Defendants raise some legitimate concerns regarding Levin and Weil’s
actions in the Wells Matter, the lawyers’ actions there do not warrant denying the pro hac vice
motions. The Court found that sanctions were not warranted in that case against plaintiff’s
counsel—including Levin and Weil—regarding their publication of information regarding the
City’s insurance coverage, and further instructed the parties in that case that it expects them “to
not make any knowingly false statements regarding the case in or outside the Court.” (Wells
Matter, ECF No. 463 at PageID 6480.) Since the Court entered that Order on July 31, 2025,
there has not been a suggestion that plaintiff’s counsel has run afoul of that instruction. Denying
the pro hac vice applications on those grounds is not warranted.
Similarly, although the Court is concerned about counsel’s apparent failure to follow the
Court’s protocols for sealing documents, that failure does not warrant denying their pro hac vice
applications. Instead, Levin and Weil are directed to re-read the Court’s Local Rules including
the Guidelines of Professional Courtesy and Conduct at Appendix C, and, consistent with Local
Rule 83.4, re-read the Rules of Professional Conduct from Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8.
Finally, the City Defendants’ contention that Levin and Weil “unexplainably obtained
and mishandled sealed documents from the related criminal case” does not provide a basis for
denying the pro hac vice applications. As far as the Court can tell, the City Defendants are
referring to counsel’s acquisition of trial exhibits from the related criminal case by the attorneys
in the Wells Matter. That issue was addressed in March 2025 by Judge Norris, who, at the time,
was presiding over both the criminal case and the Wells Matter.
At the Court’s direction, Weil submitted a declaration in which he explained that the
Clerk of Court provided him the trial exhibits and that he did not obtain them from any other
source. (Wells Matter, ECF No. 355 (sealed).) Judge Norris entered an order the next day in
Case 2:25-cv-02799-SHL-atc Document 41 Filed 12/05/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID
<pageID>

7
which he explained that four exhibits “were filed under seal in the criminal case and were
obtained from the Clerk’s Office in error.” (Wells Matter, ECF No. 357 (sealed).) Judge Norris
required that the materials be destroyed and that, “[n]o later than March 28, 2025, all counsel
shall file, under seal, a Notice of Compliance accompanied by a declaration confirming that all
sealed exhibits have been destroyed and that reasonable steps were taken to eliminate all such
documents from their possession, custody, or control.” (Id. at PageID 5447.) Weil confirmed
the destruction of those documents. (Wells Matter, ECF No. 362.)
In other words, contrary to the City Defendants’ suggestion, the attorneys did not
“unexplainably obtain” sealed documents. The documents were provided to them in error, and,
after the issue was brought to the Court’s attention, they explained precisely how they obtained
them from the Clerk’s Office in error. Then, the attorneys verified that they destroyed the
documents consistent with the Court’s directive. This does not provide a basis for denying Levin
and Weil’s pro hac vice motions.
Finally, the Court finds implausible the City Defendants’ contention that “[t]he only
conceivable reason for the Proposed Pro Hac Attorneys appearing in this case is to seek
additional discovery against the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department that
might be prevented by the Wells case’s discovery deadline and a court order denying the
plaintiff’s motion for additional depositions.” (ECF No. 40 at PageID 302.) The main
conceivable reason, and the one Levin and Weil assert, is that White retained them to represent
her in this case, which deals with an area of law that Levin and Weil specialize in, and not for
any purpose related to the Wells Matter. To that end, the City Defendants’ request that the Court
exclude from the Wells Case any discovery obtained in the White and Young cases after the
Case 2:25-cv-02799-SHL-atc Document 41 Filed 12/05/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID
<pageID>

8
close of discovery in the Wells Case is DENIED. If the City Defendants’ concern proves true,
the Court will address the matter at that time.
CONCLUSION
Levin and Weil’s motions for leave to appear pro hac vice are GRANTED. White’s
Motion to Hold in Abeyance Her Deadline to Respond to the City’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED. White shall have until December 11, 2025, in which to file her response to the
Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of December, 2025.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02799-SHL-atc Document 41 Filed 12/05/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID
<pageID>