Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-4910
August 6, 2002
Joseph M. Adams, Joseph M. Adams, P.C., Doylestown, PA, Don Adams, Pro Se, Cheltenham, PA, Larry Klayman, Paul J. Orfanedes, Ian J. Drake, John L. Martin, Patrick D. Farrington, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, Theresa Adams, Pro Se, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
Brian J. McMonagle, Esq., Pro Se, McMonagle, Perri McHugh, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Thomas H. Kohn, Markowitz Richman, Philadelphia, PA, for Teamsters Local 115, John M. Corcoran, Philadelphia, PA, for Kevin McNulty, Marc A. Nardone, Mark Hopkins and Sharon Hopkins, Alfred J. Falcione, Bochetto Lentz, P.C., Grady Falcione, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Charlie Davis, Heather L. Diocson, and Norma Bottomer, Denise S. Wolf, Assistant City Solicitor City of Philadelphia Law Department, Gregory J. Vrato, City of Philadelphia Law Dept., Peter D. Winebrake, Trujillo Rodriguez Richards, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Norton Brainard, III, ESQ., and Edward G. Rendell, Emily Zimmerman, Fern L. Kletter, District Attorney's Office Civil Litigation Unit, Karen A. Brancheau, Assistant Dist. Atty. Chief, Civil Lit. Unit, Philadelphia, PA, for Lynne M. Abraham, Edward R. Sutton, Feasterville, PA, for John Doe, Jane Doe Nos 1-99, The Estate of John P. Morris, Susan Boyle, Baptiste Wilder, P.C., Washington, DC, for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, for Defendants and Cross-Defendants.
Emily Zimmerman, Fern L. Kletter, District Attorney's Office Civil Litigation Unit, for Philadelphia District, Brian J. McMonagle, McMonagle, Perri McHugh, Philadelphia, PA, for Kenneth J. Woodring, Jr. for Cross-Defendants.
Bradford A. Richman, City of Philadelphia Law Dept., Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent.
Karen A. Brancheau, Assistant Dist. Atty. Chief, Civil Lit. Unit, for Raymon J. Harley and Richard Negrin, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., Phila, PA, for Nancy Morris, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, III, Esq., Pro Se, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick Law Offices, Philadelphia, PA, for F. Emmet Fitzpatrick, III, for Movants.
Denise S. Wolf, Assistant City Solicitor City of Philadelphia Law Department, Gregory J. Vrato, City of Philadelphia Law Dept., Peter D. Winebrake, Trujillo Rodriguez Richards, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Cross-Claimant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6 day of August, 2002, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' second Motion for Leave to Depose Former Police Commissioner John Timoney, the response, thereto, and after review of the Deposition of Edward G. Rendell, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The basis for Plaintiffs' renewed motion is a discrepancy in Mr. Timoney's answers to interrogatories and Mr. Rendell's deposition testimony concerning a conversation between the two regarding the incident on October 2, 1998. Therefore, Plaintiffs shall be permitted to depose Mr. Timoney. However, considering that discovery has closed, the deposition questions shall be limited to Mr. Timoney's recollection of any contact with the former Mayor or his office relating to the incident of October 2, 1998 or the subsequent criminal complaints filed against the Plaintiffs or the Teamsters involved.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Plaintiffs in this contentious litigation have filed a "Motion to Compel Defendant Rendell to Answer Questions Posed at his June 14, 2002 Depositions." The questions to which the Plaintiffs seek answers deal with Mr. Rendell's relationship with the Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman, the judge to whom this case is assigned. Plaintiffs claim to seek information to determine whether Judge Kauffman should disqualify himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
It appears that the catalyst for this line of inquiry was Mr. Rendell's statement concerning a question during his deposition. Mr. Rendell was asked whether the Teamsters have a relationship with the Mafia. (Deposition of Rendell, 6/14/2002, 68). After counsel instructed him not to answer, Mr. Rendell stated, "Please take that to a judge. Take that baby to a judge and see if a judge orders me to answer." (Deposition of Rendell, 6/14/2002, 69). The Plaintiffs seem to believe that Mr. Rendell implied he "knew" how Judge Kauffman would rule on an objection. In fact, Mr. Rendell was referring to a judge, in the general sense, and explained that his response was based on his knowledge of the law of evidence. (Deposition of Rendell, 6/14/2002, 81).
Moreover, the questions posed to Mr. Rendell would not implicate the necessity of recusal. The fact that Mr. Rendell knows Judge Kauffman, may have supported his judicial nomination, and may socialize with him at judicial functions are not grounds for recusal. "It is common knowledge, or at least public knowledge, that the first step to the federal bench for most judges is either a history of active partisan politics or strong political connections." Home Placement Service, Inc. v. Providence Journal Company, 739 F.2d 671, 675 (1St Cir. 1984). Considering Mr. Rendell's active political role in the City of Philadelphia and his former positions as District Attorney and Mayor, it is not surprising that his path has crossed that of Judge Kauffman prior to this lawsuit.
We believe Plaintiffs' counsel misconstrued Mr. Rendell's response and further inquiry into this area is irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)("Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. . . .")
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, ___ this day of ___, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiffs "Motion to Compel Defendant Rendell to Answer Questions Posed at his June 14, 2002 Deposition," the response, thereto, and after reviewing the relevant portion of Mr. Rendell's deposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum.