In a motion filed yesterday, former Olympic skater Oksana Baiul moved Judge Forrest to recuse herself from Baiul’s case against numerous sports agents and television studios, alleging a lack of impartiality due to Judge Forrest’s past representation of certain parties and affiliated entities during her time as a partner at Cravath.  This is Baiul’s

Magistrate Judge Peck today denied the plaintiffs’ rather aggressive motion to recuse him in the gender discrimination case that we have covered at length. Judge Peck first determined the motion was untimely. He then ruled that his participation in ediscovery conferences and general support for predictive coding were not grounds for recusal:
Continue Reading Magistrate Judge Peck Denies Recusal Motion Relating to His Predictive Coding Advocacy

The temperature was just raised again in the motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Peck from the gender discrimination class action in which he broke new ground by formally authorizing predictive coding, and in which he (unsuccesfully) warned the plaintiffs to cease their “scorched earth” litigation tactics. (For prior posts on the case, click here.). The plaintiffs hired a judicial ethics expert who today moved for permission to file an amicus brief in support of recusal. In the proposed brief attached to the motion, the expert first took issue with Judge Peck issuing a decision endorsing predictive coding shortly after writing an article in favor of predictive coding:
Continue Reading Plaintiffs Hire Ethics Expert to File Amicus Brief In “Scorched Earth” Recusal Motion

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