Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-02435
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney, Judge Netburn declined to recuse herself, leaving her responsible for pretrial matters.
Lynne Freeman’s request for Judge Sarah Netburn’s recusal was not granted; Judge Netburn continued handling the referred general pretrial matters, while Judge Stanton retained matters outside that referral, including dispositive motions and trial.
What happened
In Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney, Lynne Freeman asked the court to clarify whether Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn had recused herself and, if not, to recuse herself. Freeman relied on the professional relationship between Judge Netburn’s husband and defense counsel.
The court explained that federal law requires recusal when an objective, informed observer could reasonably question a judge’s impartiality. It found no such basis because the judge’s husband had been a law partner with defense counsel 13 years earlier, was serving as conflict counsel in an unrelated case, and had no stated financial interest in this case. The court also found that routine settlement discussions did not show bias.
Judge Sarah Netburn stated that she had not recused herself and would not do so. She continued the referral for general pretrial matters, while noting that the referral did not include dispositive motions or trial.
The detailed version
- Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney · No. 1:22-cv-02435
- Colleen McMahon
- June 29, 2023
Background
Lynne Freeman filed a letter motion asking whether Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn had recused herself after Judge Stanton’s recent order. Freeman also asked Judge Netburn to recuse herself if she had not already done so. The stated basis was Judge Netburn’s husband’s professional relationship with defense counsel.
At the first conference before Judge Netburn, the court disclosed that it knew Ed Klaris of Klaris Law, the firm representing Defendants Emily Sylvan Kim and Prospect Agency, LLC. Defense counsel Lance Koonce explained that Judge Netburn’s husband was serving as “conflict counsel” in a different, unrelated case on which Koonce was working. Freeman’s counsel initially stated that it saw no conflict or appearance of impropriety. The court then managed pretrial matters for nearly a year.
Freeman later raised that Judge Netburn’s husband and Koonce had been law partners at another firm. The husband left that firm in 2010, and Koonce left sometime afterward. The opinion states that there was no suggestion that Judge Netburn’s husband had a financial interest in Klaris Law or this case.
Legal standard and analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge must recuse herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court applied the objective-observer standard: whether an objective and disinterested observer who knew and understood all the facts could reasonably question the court’s impartiality.
The court found that Freeman had not connected the prior law partnership, the unrelated conflict-counsel matter, and Judge Netburn’s ability to manage pretrial proceedings fairly. It also found no suggestion that the unrelated case involved the same issues or that a favorable ruling for the defendants in this case would help Judge Netburn’s husband’s client in the other case. The court further concluded that the lawyers’ representation of different clients in the same case did not establish a basis for questioning impartiality.
The court rejected the argument that Judge Netburn’s off-the-record discussion encouraging settlement showed bias. It stated that encouraging reasonable settlement negotiations was within the court’s referral mandate and that ordinary courtroom administration generally cannot support a recusal challenge. The court also noted that recusal motions must be made as soon as the underlying facts become known and that recusal is prohibited when the legal standard for disqualification is not met.
Ruling and effect
Judge Netburn stated: “I have not recused myself and will not.” Judge Stanton’s referral for general pretrial matters remained in place. Because the referral did not include dispositive motions or trial, Judge Stanton had issued a June 14, 2023 order addressing defendants’ request for an expedited ruling on whether Freeman’s works established substantial similarity with the Crave book series. The court concluded that all pretrial matters remained under Judge Netburn’s mandate.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.