Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 868 F. Supp. 2d 137, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83659, 2012 WL 2218729 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

This Opinion and Order arose from Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification asserting an appearance of partiality due to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck’s prior advocacy of predictive coding in appropriate cases.

It presents a very detailed analysis of the recusal standards. The motion was denied because it was held untimely and meritless.

Selected Quotes From the Opinion:

“The main ground of plaintiffs’ motion is that my support for predictive coding showed bias favoring MSL and coerced plaintiffs into assenting to the concept of predictive coding. The chronology of events in this case puts the lie to plaintiffs’ claim.”

Judge Peck wrote an article in the October Law Technology News called “Search Forward”. He called this fact to the parties’ attention in a conference with them. Plaintiffs made no objection at that time.

“It was not until March 28, 2012 that plaintiffs wrote a letter asking me to recuse myself from the case…On April 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed their recusal motion.”

“Plaintiffs’ seek my recusal due to my advocacy of predicative coding, relationship with Losey and speaking engagements at LegalTech.”

“…plaintiffs waited to seek my recusal until after I adopted MSL’s predictive coding protocol.”

“I have made no efforts to hide my views, relationships or affiliations. If plaintiffs truly believed that any of these issues, individually or collectively, created a bias or the appearance of partiality, they should have promptly moved for my recusal. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ recusal motion is untimely. In any event, it also is meritless [because]…[t]he fact that my interest in and knowledge about predictive coding in general overlaps with issues in this case is not a basis for recusal.”

Training