Williams v. The Dow Chemical Company
1:24-cv-12220
| E.D. Mich. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Nine lawsuits were filed by different plaintiffs, all represented by Attorney Carla Aikens, against Dow Chemical Co. in the Eastern District of Michigan from July 2023 through May 2025, and assigned to Judge Thomas L. Ludington.
- The earliest (Jones v. Dow Chem. Co.) became a bellwether case, primarily focused on extensive discovery disputes.
- Plaintiffs Jones and Baston (through declarations and motions) sought the judge’s recusal, claiming potential bias due to his late father's former role as President of Dow Corning (a past joint venture with Dow Chemical) and his attendance at a high school named for Dow's founder.
- A petition for writ of mandamus seeking recusal was filed by Jones in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a similar motion in Baston's case.
- The issue of recusal is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit, directly impacting whether the judge can continue presiding over these cases and requiring postponement of further substantive rulings.
- Approaching case deadlines prompted Judge Ludington to vacate all scheduling orders in the cases, pending resolution of the recusal issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Judge Ludington recuse due to alleged bias? | Jones/Baston allege bias from past family/employment connections | Not detailed in the opinion | No decision; issue stayed pending Sixth Circuit review and resolution |
| Should current scheduling orders remain in place? | Not specifically addressed | Not specifically addressed | Scheduling orders vacated in all cases pending recusal decision |
| Should pending motions to adjourn be granted? | Plaintiffs and Defendant sought to adjourn scheduling order | Both parties agree to adjourn | Motions to adjourn/extend scheduling orders denied as moot |
| Can the court address substantive motions before recusal is decided? | Recusal must be addressed first | Not specifically addressed | No; court postpones addressing any substantive motions until recusal issue resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- None cited with official reporter citations in this decision (only Westlaw citations and references to related proceedings)