Omni Innovations LLC et al v. BMG Music Publishing NA Inc et al

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. There being no evidence of bias or prejudice, plaintiff's request to remove Judge Coughenour (docket # 41 is DENIED. cc: James Gordon. (KL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff moved to strike BMG Columbia House's opposition to the motion for recusal on the ground that counsel for defendant has not properly appeared in this action. Plaintiff misapprehends the
ORDER
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) BMG COLUMBIA HOUSE, INC., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC, et al., _________________________________

No. C06-1350JCC ORDER

This matter comes before the Court under Local General Rule 8(c). Plaintiff James S. Gordon filed a "Motion for Recusal of the Honorable John C. Coughenour" in the above-captioned matter. Dkt. # 45. Judge Coughenour declined to recuse himself voluntarily and the matter was referred to the Chief Judge for review. Dkt. # 47. Plaintiff's motion is therefore ripe for review by this Court. Plaintiff's motion is virtually identical to the motions he filed in Omni Innovations, LLC v. Smartbargains.com LP, C06-1129JCC (Dkt. # 35), and Omni Innovations, LLC v. Inviva, Inc., C06-1537JCC (Dkt. # 45). For the reasons stated in the undersigned's order of October 6, 2009, in the Smartbargains.com matter (C06-1129JCC (Dkt. # 39)), Judge Coughenour's impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned in this matter.1 There being no

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

evidence of bias or prejudice, plaintiff's request to remove Judge Coughenour is DENIED.

Dated this 5th day of November, 2009.

A Robert S. Lasnik

Chief Judge, United States District Court

record. Defendant has been represented by attorney Roger Townsend since the Joint Status Report was filed on March 21, 2007. When Mr. Townsend changed law firms later that year, he notified the Court and plaintiff's then-counsel of the change and provided his new address. Dkt. # 24. There being no ex parte communications or "basic unfairness in the current system," (Dkt. # 43 at 2), plaintiff's motion to strike is DENIED.
ORDER

-2-