As you may have already seen, the blawgs have been discussing this recent order by United States District Court Judge Eric Melgren. Judge Melgren issued the order granting a motion for a continuance of a trial scheduled for June 14, 2011, in Kansas, after the defendant, a Dallas attorney, sought the continuance on the grounds that his first-born son was due to be born on July 3, 2011. The judge expresses his dismay at the plaintiff’s attorneys’ decision to oppose the motion:
OK
, I admit to not being the biggest fan of NPR but I do listen and have always heard various events introduced, in dulcet tones, as coming from the National Press Club. Where was this club and how do you join? Can someone like me ever get in?
Well, I still don’t suppose that I can join, but at least I’ll be able to get in this Thursday when I’ll have the privilege of joining several others for a discussion on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – at the National Press Club in DC. My paper discusses limitations on e-discovery as informed by generally applicable and neutrally established document retention and retrieval policies. The notion is informed by a philosophy that I tried to follow as general counsel of Rite Hite Holding. We should try not, I used to say, run our business for purposes of litigation. Something about the tail wagging the dog.
I am sure that this event at the National Press Club will not be broadcast. Even public radio has some required threshold of excitement.
Earlier this week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in In Re Sherwin-Williams Co. The court upheld Judge Lynn Adelman’s decision not to recuse himself from a case pending before him in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Burton v. American Cyandamid, et al.
Sherwin-Williams is currently before Adelman as a defendant in a personal injury action involving lead paint, heard in diversity jurisdiction. S-W believed “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (the relevant legal standard) because he had written an article defending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s controversial lead paint decision in Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129. (The article is Adelman & Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007)). In the article, Adelman defended the Court’s 04-05 term generally and praised Thomas particularly as a “positive development” which ensured that “the doors of the courthouse remain open.” Id. at 446.
Based on this characterization, S-W sought his recusal in this case.