La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:19-cv-03800
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc., Judge Aaron’s court received a letter raising possible recusal, but the provided text contains no ruling.
Brian La Belle, Barclays Capital Inc., and Judge Stewart D. Aaron are affected by the possible recusal issue and the unresolved request described in the letter.
What happened
In La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc., Plaintiff Brian La Belle told the court that Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s former firm may have represented Barclays or its CEO in investigations related to whistleblowing. La Belle said he was not claiming actual bias or that Judge Aaron personally knew about the work.
La Belle requested a pre-motion conference and raised the issue under the federal law governing judicial disqualification. He said he might use materials from the investigations and question the CEO or other Barclays witnesses about the company’s whistleblowing program.
The provided text does not show a completed court ruling. It ends after stating that Judge Aaron had no involvement in the matter and lacked knowledge about the work described, so Judge Aaron’s final action on the request cannot be determined from the text provided.
The detailed version
- La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03800
- Stewart Aaron
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
The provided document is a letter from Plaintiff Brian La Belle’s attorney to Judge Stewart D. Aaron. The letter requests a pre-motion conference and raises a possible judicial-disqualification issue under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(2). That provision addresses situations in which a judge, while in private practice, served as a lawyer in the matter before the court, or a former law partner did so during the partnership.
The letter states that Judge Aaron’s former firm, Arnold & Porter, may have represented Barclays or Barclays CEO Jes Staley in investigations by the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority and the New York State Department of Financial Services. The investigations concerned Barclays’ whistleblowing program and related systems, controls, and culture. The letter says La Belle was not asserting that Judge Aaron personally participated in, knew about, or was biased because of those investigations.
Plaintiff’s Position
La Belle’s attorney argued that the investigations and this case might share issues concerning Barclays’ whistleblowing systems and culture. The attorney said La Belle anticipated using the investigations’ documents as deposition or trial exhibits and might question Mr. Staley, a Barclays whistleblowing representative, or a company witness about the investigations and whistleblowing program. La Belle might also seek expert testimony about the adequacy of Barclays’ whistleblowing program and internal investigation.
The letter also refers to an earlier discovery ruling involving documents concerning the New York State investigation. It states that La Belle intended to file a limited objection to that ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and that other discovery issues might arise.
Court Action
The supplied text does not contain a complete judicial order or a clear disposition of the request. Its final visible passage states that, while a partner at Arnold & Porter, Judge Aaron had no involvement in the matter and lacked knowledge about the matter on which the former firm attorney apparently worked. The text then ends mid-sentence. Accordingly, the provided material does not establish whether Judge Aaron granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request or any recusal issue.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.