Thompson v. TransUnion

Background

Kenan Thompson, proceeding without a lawyer, moved to disqualify the magistrate judge handling discovery in his case against TransUnion. The discovery matters had been referred to that judge. After the judge denied Thompson’s request to attend a discovery hearing remotely, Thompson objected to the ruling before Judge Vince Chhabria, who denied the objection. Thompson then did not attend the in-person discovery hearing. The magistrate judge later issued an order requiring Thompson to explain his nonappearance and failure to comply with court orders.

Thompson’s disqualification motion relied primarily on the magistrate judge’s rulings requiring his personal appearance and resolving discovery matters on written submissions without oral argument. The opinion also notes that, after filing the disqualification motion, Thompson filed a request to stay the case and a notice objecting to the scheduled hearing on the order to show cause while the disqualification motion remained pending.

Legal standard

The court applied 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. These provisions address judicial disqualification when a judge has actual bias or when a reasonable person who knows the facts could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 3-14, which requires referral of a disqualification request to another judge when the challenged judge does not recuse, unless the request is legally insufficient or was filed for delay.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Thompson had not shown actual bias or an appearance of bias. It explained that an adverse ruling, without more, does not establish bias. The court determined that the magistrate judge’s requirement that Thompson satisfy his burden of proof and the judge’s exercise of discretion concerning hearing procedures were not evidence of bias.

The court also rejected Thompson’s arguments concerning the transportation burden. It noted that the opinion’s record described public transportation costing less than twenty dollars, a transit route from Antioch to the courthouse, and Thompson’s prior statements that he owned a car and lived rent-free without monthly utility obligations. The court found that Thompson had not provided documentary evidence supporting his claimed inability to afford transportation or explained why he could not use his car or obtain assistance from someone else.

The court further held that resolving discovery motions on the papers was permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). It stated that Thompson’s written submissions presented his positions and that the discovery dispute was decided after review of those submissions. The court also concluded that statements made at the hearing Thompson chose not to attend did not establish bias.

Finally, the court found the motion legally insufficient and interposed for delay. It therefore concluded that referral to another judge was not warranted under Civil Local Rule 3-14.

Disposition

The court denied with prejudice Thompson’s motion to disqualify the magistrate judge and stated that the ruling resolved docket entry 57.