In re Disqualification of Holbrook, 2013 Ohio 5863

Plaintiff Georgianna Parisi filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Michael J. Holbrook from a Franklin County legal-malpractice case (12-CV-2858).
Parisi alleged bias based on a March 12, 2013 discovery order requiring her to copy and deliver voluminous documents the same day and threatening sanctions for noncompliance.
Parisi said compliance was impossible (copy shop estimated ~30 days and substantial cost) and she moved to require defendants to pay copying costs; that motion was unresolved when she filed the disqualification affidavit.
Parisi also alleged two disparaging comments by the judge at status conferences ("Nobody’s going to believe you"; "What am I going to do with you?").
Judge Holbrook admitted frustration, explained the discovery order was an attempt to cure longstanding discovery problems and push the case to trial, and characterized the comments as contextual admonitions rather than evidence of fixed bias.
The judge and defense counsel submitted responses asserting fairness and lack of bias; the court considered whether the affidavit established grounds for disqualification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge should be disqualified for issuing an allegedly impossible discovery order	Holbrook’s order was impossible to comply with, imposed undue copying costs, and reflects bias	Order was proper case-management; judge exercised discretion to remedy discovery abuses and did not act from personal bias	Denied — discovery disagreement does not show bias; such errors are for appeal, not disqualification
Whether judge’s alleged disparaging comments require disqualification	Comments show hostility and demonstrate a fixed anticipatory judgment against Parisi	Comments were contextual admonitions reflecting frustration with noncompliance, not personal animus	Denied — remarks, in context, do not show the requisite hostile ill will to disqualify
Whether an affidavit of disqualification is a proper vehicle to litigate substantive/procedural rulings	Affidavit used to challenge order and compel cost-shifting	Affidavit is extraordinary remedy; legal rulings should be reviewed on appeal	Denied — affidavit is not a substitute for appellate review of legal/procedural rulings
Whether presumption of judicial impartiality was overcome	Parisi argued the totality of order and comments overcame presumption	Court emphasized strong presumption that judge follows law and is impartial	Denied — presumption not overcome; affidavit insufficient

In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214 (recognizing affidavit of disqualification is not a vehicle to contest substantive/procedural rulings)
In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217 (party dissatisfaction with rulings, even if erroneous, does not equal bias)
In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243 (judges may express dissatisfaction with dilatory tactics but must do so consistent with judicial dignity and impartiality)
In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1232 (definition of bias/prejudice requires evidence of hostile feeling or fixed anticipatory judgment)
In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241 (statutory disqualification is extraordinary and presumes judge’s impartiality)