Ryan Corley et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 100

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on May 23, 2016, re #95 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RYAN CORLEY, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
RECUSAL

GOOGLE, INC.,

(Re: Docket No. 95)
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:16-cv-00473-LHK

12
13

A short while ago, I announced my intention to resign on June 3 to take a position at

14

Facebook, Inc. Since then, I have been touched by the many emails, phone calls, and yes,

15

Facebook posts offering me warm congratulations and good wishes. One congratulatory note,

16

however, stands out—a letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel asking that I consider recusing myself from

17

this case.1

18

I want to be clear that I bear Mr. Gallo no ill will for his request. On the contrary, I

19

commend him as a lawyer committed to his primary responsibility of protecting the interests of his

20

clients. But as much as I respect Mr. Gallo, I struggle to understand the basis for his request. The

21

letter articulates no basis other than the fact that my new employer may hold certain views about

22

protecting confidential information in cases such as this.2 And yet Facebook is not the defendant

23

in this case—Google is. In fact, Facebook is not a party of any kind. The most that can be said of

24

my future employer is that, like, Google, it provides a global social network with a certain public

25
1

See Docket No. 95.

2

See id.

26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:16-cv-00473-LHK
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

1

profile and a certain litigation experience. Those similarities by themselves come nowhere close

2

to meeting the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) that my impartiality might reasonably be

3

questioned.

4

Still, I am mindful that the goal of Section 455 is “to avoid even the appearance of

5

partiality,” even where no partiality exists.3 Put another way, parties appearing before this or any

6

other court deserve reasonable assurances that, when ruling on even the least significant

7

procedural matter, their judge is not thinking even one bit of anything other than the merits of their

8

positions under the law. And so at the risk of erring on the side of caution and unnecessarily

9

burdening my already overburdened colleagues on this bench, I GRANT Mr. Gallo’s request,
recuse myself from this matter and ORDER that the Clerk reassign discovery matters in this case

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

without delay.

12

I must indulge in a final word to whichever magistrate judge colleague finds this pile

13

dropped on his desk. Under ordinary circumstances, I would buy you lunch for this inconvenience

14

as a small token of my appreciation. But the present circumstances suggest that even such a

15

limited gesture might be misinterpreted. So rather than giving you lunch, I give you something far

16

more modest, but just as heartfelt: my thanks.

17

SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: May 23, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988) (internal quotations
omitted).
2
Case No. 5:16-cv-00473-LHK
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECUSAL