We blogged before about the well-publicized gender discrimination class action in which the plaintiffs, ignoring Magistrate Judge Peck’s warnings about “scorched earth” tactics, moved to recuse him, in part, for his advocacy of predictive coding. In their reply brief filed yesterday, the plaintiffs claim there is further support for the alleged appearance of bias from events occurring after the motion. They attach the transcript from a rather contentious April 25 conference. In the following passage, plaintiffs’ counsel, after having a discovery request denied by Judge Peck, asks Judge Peck to not rule on anything while the recusal motion is pending, prompting a firm reaction from Judge Peck:
Continue Reading Recusal Reply Cites Contentious Hearing Occurring After Recusal Motion

Magistrate Judge Peck issued a widely-publicized opinion in February endorsing the use of “predictive coding” — using computer algorithms to help identify relevant documents — in a gender discrimination class action. (See coverage, e.g., in Reuters, law.com, ABA Journal.) The plaintiffs sent Judge Peck scathing letter the following month asking that Judge Peck recuse himself because of his public advocacy of predictive coding and because of his public appearances with defense counsel Ralph Losey on the subject:
Continue Reading Lawyers Ignore Judge Peck’s Warning Against “Scorched Earth” Tactics and Move to Recuse Him