Court Denies Defendant's Motion for Recusal in BP Litigation
In United States v. Mix, CRIM. 12-171, 2014 WL 580758 (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 2014), the court addressed defendant's motion to recuse Judge Duval based on the fact that the Judge’s permanent law clerk owned property in Grand Isle and had joined in a civil lawsuit against BP. Defendant, Mix, was a former drilling engineer for BP who had previously been convicted on one count of obstruction of justice.The court had disclosed this fact to the parties before the trial began. During disclosure, all of the attorneys involved indicated that this fact would not give rise to a need for recusal. At this point the court allowed the parties seven days to investigate the disclosure and, if needed, request recusal anonymously. All of the parties waived their rightfor recusal.Despite Mix’s waiver for requesting recusal, Mix argued that recusal was necessary because the clerk’s claims alleged that BP—and by extension, Mix—had disseminated fraudulent ‘flow-rate’ information.The court found this argument unpersuasive. The court noted that all of the attorneys involved should have known that owning property in Grand Isle would lead to a basis for making a claim and that the clerk would have to go through Multi-District Litigation (MDL) against BP for relief.The court indicated that if the movant had been pro se the matter might be different, but any attorney ought to have been able to see potential conflicts arising out of an individual owning property at the center of the BP oil spill.The court further held that the criminal trial in question was not sufficiently related to the BP MDL to require recusal. The criminal trial concerned whether or not Mix subjectively believed that deleting certain text messages would impede a grand jury’s inquiry. The civil trial against BP did not concern this issue. Therefore, the outcome of the criminal trial had no bearing on the civil trial.Finally, the court found the motion untimely. The court was reluctant to allow a party to participate in an entire trial and then move for recusal. If such actions were allowed, parties would always wait until a verdict was entered before asking for recusal as a way to try the matter again until they obtained a favorable verdict.
