COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC v. ROOP

Filing 78

PROCEDURAL ORDER By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC.,
PLAINTIFF
V.

ROBERT ROOP,

ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-54-DBH

PROCEDURAL ORDER
In preparing for oral argument on the pending motions and for trial later
this month and, in particular, upon reading the parties’ lists of potential
witnesses, I have become aware that I am somewhat acquainted with two of the
witnesses. I do not believe that the level of my acquaintance requires me to
recuse myself under the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 455 or the Code of Conduct.
Nevertheless, I consider it best to disclose the acquaintance and determine
whether any party is concerned.
1.

Witness David Verrill—if this is the David Verrill who formerly lived

in Cape Elizabeth and was a certified public accountant, he was my accountant
in the 1970s, we had offices in the same building while I was in private practice,
and we and our spouses socialized from time to time then. I do not believe I have
seen him in the past 30 years except for a couple of summers ago when we found
ourselves on the same Casco Bay ferry en route to Peaks Island and exchanged
greetings and information about our children and grandchildren.

2.

Witness Alan Mooney—he did a home inspection for our home in

Cape Elizabeth in the mid-1970s, later did a home inspection for a property we
purchased on Vinalhaven (around 1980) and did an engineering report about a
bearing wall when we renovated our Cape Elizabeth kitchen in the late 1990s.
The latter may have been under the auspices of Criterium Engineering, I do not
recall. I do not believe I have had any dealings with him since that time.
Because the court was closed yesterday due to the severe snowstorm, I
was unable to post this disclosure until now. Oral argument is scheduled on the
pending motions for this afternoon. If any party seeks recusal after consulting
with their respective clients, that party shall promptly request the Clerk’s office
to postpone the oral argument.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2