Lincoln Memorial Academy v. School District of Manatee County, Florida

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

LINCOLN MEMORIAL ACADEMY;

EDDIE HUNDLEY; MELVIA SCOTT;

JAUANA PHILLIPS; KATRINA ROSS;

and ANGELLA ENRISMA,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 8:20-cv-309-CEH-AAS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION; SCHOOL BOARD

OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA;

and THE CITY OF PALMETTO,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiffs Lincoln Memorial Academy, Eddie Hundley, Melvia Scott,

Jauana Phillips, Katrina Ross, and Angella Enrisma (collectively, the

plaintiffs), and their counsel Roderick O. Ford, Esq. move for the undersigned

to recuse herself from this action. (Doc. 145). Defendants School Board of

Manatee County, Florida (the School Board) and the City of Palmetto

(collectively, the defendants) oppose the motion. (Docs. 157, 158).

I. BACKGROUND

The School Board served written discovery requests on the plaintiffs on

June 10, 2020. (See Doc. 81-3). On August 2, 2020, the School Board sent

Attorney Ford an email requesting the outstanding discovery responses by

August 7, 2020. (Doc. 81, Ex. 1). On August 28, 2020, after multiple attempts

to resolve the discovery deficiencies, the School Board moved to compel

responses to its discovery requests. (Doc. 31). On August 29, 2020, the plaintiffs

responded to the School Board’s motion to compel. (Doc. 32). On September 8,

2020, the undersigned granted the School Board’s motion to compel in part and

ordered the plaintiffs to produce the outstanding discovery responses. (Doc.

36).1 The undersigned allowed the plaintiffs an additional month to produce

their outstanding responses—by September 23, 2020. (Doc. 36). The

undersigned also scheduled another discovery videoconference to address any

remaining discovery disputes. (Doc. 37).

On October 5, 2020, the undersigned held a discovery videoconference,

lasting one hour and eighteen minutes. (See Doc. 56). The undersigned

addressed the plaintiffs’ continued discovery deficiencies and ordered the

plaintiffs to correct the deficiencies by October 23, 2020. (Doc. 68). The

undersigned also ordered the School Board to resend electronic copies of its

discovery requests to each of the plaintiffs. (Id.). The undersigned scheduled

1 The court granted the motion in part to the extent that the School Board’s request

for attorney’s fees and costs would be considered later, along with any other discovery

disputes. (Doc. 36, p. 2).

another discovery videoconference for October 30, 2020 to resolve any

remaining discovery issues. (Id.).

On October 29, 2020, the School Board moved for sanctions against the

plaintiffs.2 (Doc. 81). The School Board requested an award of its attorney’s

fees and costs against the plaintiffs because of their continued discovery

violations and failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders. (Id.). That

same day, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion for

sanctions. (Doc. 83).

On October 30, 2020, the undersigned held a one-hour discovery

videoconference. (Doc. 85). At the videoconference, the undersigned addressed

the plaintiffs’ continued discovery deficiencies and granted the plaintiffs’ oral

motion to extend the discovery deadline until December 18, 2020. (Doc. 89).

The undersigned also gave the plaintiffs additional time to substantively

respond to the School Board’s motion for sanctions—until November 13, 2020.

(Id.).

On December 1, 2020, the undersigned held an evidentiary hearing on

the School Board’s motion for sanctions. (Doc. 110). The evidentiary hearing

lasted three hours and fifty-two minutes. (Id.). At the hearing, the parties

2 The School Board did not request sanctions against Ms. Scott because she complied

with the court’s discovery orders. (Doc. 81).

called witnesses and argued their respective positions. (See id.; see also Docs.

130, 133).

A December 17th order granted the School Board’s motion for sanctions

and awarded the School Board its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs against

Attorney Ford for the unnecessary time and expenses the School Board

incurred because of the plaintiffs’ discovery violations. (Doc. 115). The court

did not assess costs against the individual plaintiffs because it was Attorney

Ford’s responsibility to ensure his clients, who are unfamiliar with the federal

discovery process and credibly testified to their desire and effort toward

compliance, were aware of and fulfilled their discovery obligations within the

time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at pp. 12-13).

Because the court found Attorney Ford repeatedly failed to fulfill his discovery

oversight obligations as the plaintiffs’ counsel and to comply with court orders,

the School Board’s reasonable expenses incurred for the discovery dispute were

assessed against Attorney Ford. (Id.).

The plaintiffs now move for the undersigned to recuse herself from this

action. (Doc. 145).3 The defendants oppose the motion. (Docs. 157, 158).

3 Separate from the motion for recusal and its attachments, Attorney Ford filed an

affidavit. (Doc. 149).

II. ANALYSIS

The plaintiffs request that the undersigned recuse herself under 28

U.S.C. § 455. (Doc. 145). Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b) requires recusal when

the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or when the judge

“has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of

disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” Id. The court evaluates

28 U.S.C. § 455 under the standard of whether “an objective, fully informed lay

observer would entertain significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.”

United States v. Arrate-Rodriguez, 724 F. App’x 832, 836 (11th Cir. 2018).

The plaintiffs put forth no facts supporting a reasonable questioning of

the court’s impartiality, bias for the defendants, or the court’s personal

knowledge of any disputed evidentiary facts. The plaintiffs cite an error in the

undersigned’s order granting the School Board’s motion for sanctions where

the undersigned incorrectly stated that a hearing took place on September 8,

2020. (See Doc. 115, p. 11). Neither the September 8th order, nor this error,

adversely affected the plaintiffs. Rather, on September 8th, the undersigned

directed the plaintiffs to respond to the School Board’s discovery requests and

granted the plaintiffs additional time to do so. (See Doc. 36). The undersigned

also scheduled a discovery videoconference to address any remaining discovery

issues. (See Docs. 36, 37).

After the September 8th order, the undersigned held two discovery

videoconferences, together lasting over two hours, to address the plaintiffs’

discovery deficiencies. (See Docs. 56, 85). The individual plaintiffs and Attorney

Ford were present at the videoconferences and the undersigned repeatedly

advised the plaintiffs of their discovery obligations.

Then, to address the School Board’s motion for sanctions, the

undersigned held an evidentiary hearing lasting almost four hours. (See Doc.

110). The undersigned allowed the parties to present evidence and argument.

After the evidentiary hearing, the undersigned entered a detailed order

explaining why the order granted the School Board’s motion for sanctions.

(Doc. 115). The fact that the order granted the sanctions motion is not evidence

of partiality or favoritism by the undersigned. See United States v. Singletary,

196 F. App’x 819, 820 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[A]dverse rulings alone do not provide

a party with a basis for holding that the court’s impartiality is in doubt.”). On

the contrary, prior to the order, the court and opposing counsel patiently

provided the plaintiffs several opportunities and additional time to comply

with their discovery obligations.

A judge should not recuse herself based on unsupported and tenuous

allegations. Giles v. Garwood, 853 F.2d 876, 878 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,

499 U.S. 1030 (1989). Recusal is not appropriate or justified under these

circumstances.

II. CONCLUSION

The plaintiffs’ motion for recusal of the undersigned (Doc. 145) is

DENIED.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 19, 2021.

Aranda. Ayre □□ Sarma.

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE

United States Magistrate Judge