Abraham v. Leigh

Background

Robyn Abraham filed three motions. She sought reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision granting the Leigh Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; the unsealing of documents and restoration of materials struck from the record; and recusal, meaning that Judge Katherine Polk Failla step aside from the case. The court addressed the motions together because their factual arguments substantially overlapped.

The opinion describes the case as a breach-of-contract action involving a Talent Agreement. Abraham’s motions included allegations about opposing parties, her former attorneys, the filing of summary-judgment materials, document tampering, and sealing. The court stated that many of these allegations were irrelevant to whether Abraham had complied with the Talent Agreement. It also rejected Abraham’s theories that the litigation resulted from a coordinated scheme, that opposing parties had manufactured evidence-tampering claims, and that her second legal team had improperly pressured or deceived her.

The court had previously found that Abraham altered or fabricated 33 documents and gave false testimony about them. It excluded those documents, imposed fees and costs incurred by the Leigh Defendants in addressing the issue, and left open the possibility of an adverse instruction at trial. The court also noted that a counterclaim by Defendant Leigh for breach of fiduciary duty had not been resolved during summary judgment and would instead be resolved at trial.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is available only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to repeat old arguments, present new theories, or seek a second hearing on issues already decided.

Abraham challenged the court’s refusal to accept additional summary-judgment materials, including deposition transcripts, after the Leigh Defendants had filed their reply. The court held that it had allowed Abraham to file the papers she had emailed on March 11, 2020, but had properly rejected later materials as an impermissible additional reply. The court also said it had reviewed relevant deposition transcripts because the parties had cited them in their motion papers.

To the extent Abraham sought reconsideration of the earlier decision excluding the 33 documents, the court again denied relief. It stated that Abraham had offered no evidence or argument warranting a change in the findings that the documents had been altered or fabricated and that she had perjured herself regarding them. The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.

Motion to Unseal

The court recognized a general presumption that the public may access judicial documents—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. It explained that courts must weigh that presumption against legitimate reasons for keeping particular materials confidential, including personal information and confidentiality obligations.

The court declined to unseal documents sealed under the parties’ Protective Order, noting that Abraham had not followed the procedure in that order for challenging confidentiality designations. The court also understood Abraham to be seeking disclosure of materials concerning settlements with Defendants Honig and Wasserman and with Kerwick and Wiss, as well as disputes with her former attorneys. It refused that request because the materials included what the court characterized as false and irrelevant allegations, personal information, and material that could implicate settlement agreements. The motion to unseal was denied.

Motion for Recusal

Recusal requires a judge to step aside when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when she has a personal bias or personal knowledge of disputed facts. The court applied an objective standard: whether a reasonable, informed person would significantly doubt that justice could be done without recusal. It also explained that adverse rulings ordinarily are not evidence of bias, and that opinions formed during the proceedings generally do not support recusal unless they show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism making fair judgment impossible.

Abraham relied on the court’s decisions concerning sealed and stricken materials, her electronic filing privileges, the continued participation of Colleen Kerwick, the summary-judgment ruling, and sealed summary-judgment exhibits. The court rejected her factual premises and said it had explained the legal grounds for its decisions. It concluded that the challenged rulings showed neither favoritism toward Abraham’s adversaries nor antagonism toward Abraham. The court stated that any challenge to those rulings belonged in an appeal, not a recusal motion.

Disposition

Judge Failla denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, denied Plaintiff’s motion to unseal, and denied Plaintiff’s motion for recusal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 506. The opinion did not alter the earlier summary-judgment decision.