Keep in mind, all I had to do was show that an “appearance” of bias, prejudice and/or impropriety existed, but I guess a “reasonable person” wouldn’t question the partiality of a man who:

• served as the magistrate judge in a prior racial discrimination and antitrust case, Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency et al. (98-8272), involving the three main players in my case: William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael P. Zweig;
• issued an opinion in Rowe which shifted e-discovery costs onto the plaintiffs although the responding party typically covered those costs. the eight factor test enumerated by Francis was later modified by Judge Shira Scheindlin in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7939, 91 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1574 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2003) — a more requesting party friendly standard used by Francis today. See e.g., Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 2012 WL 6732905 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012);
• speaks on various panels about electronic discovery at pro-employer, pro-defendant conferences, including a conference involving Michael P. Zweig DURING the Rowe Litigation, while insinuating that he does not get paid, and;
• was appointed by two Republican appointed federal judges — Robert P. Patterson and P. Kevin Castel.

Had this case been allowed to proceed in the Southern District of New York, do you (a “reasonable person”) think that Francis would have entertained my arguments concerning “Exhibit 31” and the overall fraud that has taken place to conceal this smoking gun evidence from seeing the light of day? I doubt it…Like Michael P. Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP, he would have deferred to the “honorable” Robert P. Patterson’s decisions, labeling “Exhibit 31” to be an “unidentified and unauthenticated document.” There’s no question that Francis would find other ways to ignore the law in an effort to limit my discovery strategy.