Case Information
*1
[Cite as
In re Disqualification of Holbrook,
I N RE D ISQUALIFICATION OF H OLBROOK .
P ARISI v . M ATHEWS .
[Cite as
In re Disqualification of Holbrook,
Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Judges are entitled to
express dissatisfaction with an attorney’s dilatory actions in a way that promotes public confidence in the integrity, dignity, and impartiality of the judiciary .
(No. 13-AP-103 — Decided November 21, 2013.) N A FFIDAVIT OF D ISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Court оf Common Pleas Case No. 12-CV-2858.
____________________
O’C ONNOR C.J. Plaintiff Georgianna I. Parisi has filed an affidavit with the clerk of
this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Michael J. Holbrook from presiding over any further proceedings in case No. 12-CV-2858, a legal- malpractice аction pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. Parisi claims that Judge Holbrook is biased and prejudiced agаinst her because he issued a discovery order that was “impossible” for her to comply with and because the judge made “disparaging” comments to her. Judge Holbrook has responded in writing to Parisi’s allegations, asserting that he does not harbor any bias or prejudice against her. Marion H. Little Jr., counsel for the defendants, has filed an affidavit stating thаt Judge Holbrook has been fair and impartial to all parties. For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to
order the disqualification of Judge Holbrook.
Judge Holbrook’s discovery order Judge Holbrook inherited the underlying case in December 2012,
and at a January 24, 2013 status conference, he gave Parisi two additional weeks to respond to the defendants’ outstanding document requests. At the next stаtus conference, on March 12, 2013, Judge Holbrook found that Parisi had not complied with his previous order, and he then ordered that she take the requested documents to a copy shop, pay for copies, and deliver the copies to defense counsel by 5:00 p.m. that day. The judge further stated that Parisi would be sanctioned if she failed tо comply. In her affidavit, Parisi claims that compliance with the judge’s
order was impossible because the documents were too voluminous to copy in one day, and when she informed Judge Holbrook’s staff that the copy shop had indicated that it could not complete the job in a day, the staff advised her that the judge stood by his order. According to Parisi, the shop later estimated that copying the documents would take about 30 days and cost $9,574.50. Parisi argues that under the civil rules, she should not bear the burden of paying for the defendants’ discovery requests. Accordingly, she has moved Judge Holbrook to require the defendants to pay the copying costs, but at the time she filed her affidavit of disquаlification, Judge Holbrook had not yet ruled on her motion. In response to Parisi’s claims, Judge Holbrook states that when he was assigned this case, he discovered “severe discovery problems,” including Parisi’s failure to produce rеquested documents. He admittedly became frustrated with Parisi at the March 12 status conference because shе had not complied with his previous order; nonetheless, he claims that he gave her another opportunity to comply by the end of that day. Judge Holbrook avers that he was “trying to get the matter to trial” and that he did not issue the March 12 order with the expectation that Parisi’s compliance was impossible. Finally, he states that he had
January Term, 2013
not yеt ruled on Parisi’s pending motion about copying costs because the motion
was not ripe for decision at the time she filed her affidavit of disqualification.
Trial judges are entitled to exercise considerable discretion in the
management of cases on their dockets, especially in discovery matters, and any
alleged abuse of that discretion should be remedied on appeal, not in an affidavit-
of-disqualification proceeding. Accordingly, it is well settled that an affidavit of
disqualification “is not a vehicle to contest matters of substantive or proсedural
law.”
In re Disqualification of Solovan
,
Judge Holbrook’s alleged disparaging comments Parisi also alleges that Judge Holbrook made disparaging
comments to her at the January and March status conferences. Specifically, Parisi
claims that Judge Holbrook stated, “Nobody’s going to believe you, you know
that, don’t you?” and “What am I going to do with you?” Judge Holbrook
acknowledges making the comments, but he places them in cоntext, indicating
that he was attempting to explain to Parisi that if she could not produce any
evidence in discovery, then no one would believe her claims at trial. As to the
second comment, Judge Holbrook states that at thаt point, he had become
“absolutely frustrated with [Parisi’s] noncompliance with the discovery process.”
Judges “аre certainly entitled to express dissatisfaction with
attorneys’ dilatory tactics inside and outside the courtroоm,” but that
dissatisfaction should be expressed in a way that promotes public confidence in
the integrity, dignity, and impartiаlity of the judiciary.
In re Disqualification of
*4
Corrigan
,
Conclusion “The statutory right to seek disqualificаtion of a judge is an
extraordinary remedy. * * * A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be
biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome
these presumptions.”
In re Disqualification of George
, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241,
denied. The case may proceed before Judge Holbrook.
________________________