Opinion
17 Civ. 5429 (KPF)
10-14-2020
ROBYN ABRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. ABBY LEIGH, as Executrix of the Estate of Mitch Leigh, Defendant.
ORDER
:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Robyn Abraham's second motion for recusal. (Dkt. #558-563). Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion papers, it does not appear that Plaintiff advances any arguments premised on occurrences that postdate the events already addressed in the Court's August 28, 2020 Order denying Plaintiff's first motion for recusal. See Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). More fundamentally, for the reasons already discussed at great length in several prior orders, the allegations that Plaintiff reiterates in support of the instant motion are almost entirely factually inaccurate. See e.g., Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5512718 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020); Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 3833424 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2020), reconsideration denied, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). And those allegations that do not misperceive or misstate the facts, such as references to the Court's decisions adverse to Plaintiff, are insufficient grounds for recusal. See Bishop v. United States, No. 04 Civ. 3633 (CSH), 2004 WL 1497690, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004) ("Rulings adverse to a party are not regarded in and of themselves as evidence of such bias or prejudice as would require recusal."). Therefore, for the reasons already discussed in the Court's August 28, 2020 Order, see 2020 WL 5095655, at *11-12, Plaintiff's second motion for recusal is DENIED.
Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff continues to put irrelevant and sensitive personal information about Plaintiff's former counsel on the public docket. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entries 559-563, to be viewable by the Court and parties only.
SO ORDERED. Dated: October 14, 2020
New York, New York
/s/_________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge