ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Investment, N.V., 759 F. Supp. 2d 289

ISC HOLDING AG petitions in SDNY against Nobel Biocare Investments, N.V. in No. 08 Civ. 11051(LLS).
At a Sept. 21, 2010 pre-motion conference, former counsel Matetsky privately stated reasons for seeking withdrawal.
Petitioner warned incoming counsel to file notice of appearance by Oct. 15 after Matetsky was relieved.
Petitioner moved for recusal alleging prejudicial private information conveyed to the judge.
Judge applied Liteky standard, found no bias or appearance of partiality; in-camera statements deemed immaterial or speculative.
The court denied recusal and ordered sealing of certain materials (notes, transcript, and Matetsky declaration).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recusal is warranted under the Liteky standard	Petitioner argues prejudicial private communications taint impartiality.	Respondent contends communications do not reveal deep-seated bias affecting judgment.	Recusal denied; no reasonable basis to question impartiality.
Whether in-camera submissions for withdrawal are improper	Petitioner challenges in-camera consideration as improper secrecy.	Respondent defends in-camera practice as normal and protective from prejudice.	In-camera consideration of withdrawal is proper.
Whether the court should reassign the case or take other actions based on asserted misconduct	Petitioner implies misconduct requires procedural adjustment.	Respondent emphasizes continuity of proceedings and merits, not reassignment.	No order to reassign; recusal denied and case posture remains.

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1994) (bias motions require deep-seated favoritism; not based on routine rulings)