Miller v. Apple, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-01172
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Miller v. Apple, Judge Tarnofsky denied Miller’s motion to recuse her from his copyright case.
John W. Miller and Apple, Inc.; the ruling determined that Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky would remain assigned to the case, but it did not decide the underlying copyright claims.
What happened
In John W. Miller v. Apple, Inc., Miller, who represented himself, asked the judge to step aside from his alleged copyright-infringement case against Apple. He pointed out that the judge had previously been a partner at Paul Weiss, a firm that represented Apple in a separate antitrust case brought by Epic Games.
Miller argued that this earlier connection created a serious conflict and undermined confidence in the judge’s impartiality. The judge explained that the law requires recusal when a judge worked on the same matter or when an objective, informed observer would reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The court found that the two cases involved different plaintiffs and different areas of law, and that the judge had left Paul Weiss before the firm began representing Apple in the Epic Games case.
Judge Tarnofsky denied the motion to recuse and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. The opinion did not decide Miller’s underlying copyright claims.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Apple, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01172
- John Cronan
- Mar. 19, 2025
Background
John W. Miller, representing himself, sued Apple, Inc. for alleged copyright infringement. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for general pretrial supervision and dispositive motions. Miller moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455 for Judge Tarnofsky’s recusal, meaning that she would step aside from the case.
Miller noted that Judge Tarnofsky had previously been a partner at Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Paul Weiss represented Apple in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, Inc. Miller argued that this prior representation created a severe conflict of interest and undermined judicial impartiality and public confidence.
Legal Standards
Section 455(b)(2) requires recusal when a judge, while in private practice, served as a lawyer in the matter before the court, or when a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced represented a party concerning that matter during the judge’s association with the firm. Section 455(a) requires recusal when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court applied an objective standard: whether a fully informed, disinterested observer would have significant doubt that justice would be done without recusal.
Analysis
Judge Tarnofsky stated that she left Paul Weiss in 2016 and had no financial relationship with the firm. Based on publicly available information, the court stated that Paul Weiss’s representation of Apple in the Epic Games case began in mid-2021, more than four years after she left the firm.
The court found that Judge Tarnofsky had not worked on Miller’s case and that Miller did not argue that Paul Weiss represented Apple in his case, either during or after her time at the firm. The court also rejected Miller’s proposed broader test based on a substantially related matter. It found that Miller’s case and the Epic Games case involved different plaintiffs and different areas of law: copyright in Miller’s case and antitrust law in the Epic Games case.
The court further held that the prior representation did not require recusal under Section 455(a) because the earlier matter was unrelated to the litigation before it. The court therefore denied Miller’s motion to recuse and requested that the Clerk of Court terminate ECF 33. The opinion did not resolve the underlying copyright-infringement claims or Apple’s pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.