Welch v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 27 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-AP-021 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 2120 |
| Parties | In re Disqualification of Clark. Estate of Welch et al. v. Taylor et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On Affidavit of Disqualification in Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, Probate and Juvenile Division, Case No 2017-4001.
{¶ 1} Craig T. Matthews, counse for the plaintiffs, has filed an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 and 2101.39 and Article IV, Section 5(C) of the Ohio Constitution seeking to disqualify Judge Margaret A. Clark, a retired judge sitting by assignment, from the above-referenced case.
{¶ 2} Mr. Matthews avers that for several reasons Judge Clark is biased against him and the plaintiffs. He primarily argues that the judge has misunderstood or misconstrued the nature of the parties' discovery disputes and, as a result, has unfairly prevented the plaintiffs from conducting meaningful discovery and "upended the mandate from the court of appeals." Mr. Matthews further alleges that at hearings, the judge has advocated for the defendant and requested defense counsel to draft proposed entries for the judge's signature.
{¶ 3} Judge Clark submitted an original and a supplemental response to the affidavit of disqualification. The judge asserts that Mr. Matthews's affidavit omits certain facts relating to the parties' discovery disputes. The judge also denies that she has prevented Mr. Matthews from conducting depositions and believes that she has complied with all orders from the court of appeals.
{¶ 4} In disqualification requests, "[t]he term 'bias or prejudice' 'implies a hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will or undue friendship or favoritism toward one of the litigants or his attorney, with the formation of a fixed anticipatory judgment on the part of the judge, as contradistinguished from an open state of mind which will be governed by the law and the facts.'" In re Disqualification of O'Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1232 2002-Ohio-7479, 798 N.E.2d 17, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956), paragraph four of the syllabus. In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8. In addition, a "presumption of impartiality" is accorded all judges in affidavit-of-disqualification proceedings. In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, 101 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2003-Ohio-7352, 803 N.E.2d 823, ¶ 7. For the reasons explained below, Mr. Matthews has not established that Judge Clark has hostile feelings toward him or the plaintiffs or that the judge has formed a fixed anticipatory judgment on any issue in the underlying case. Nor has Mr. Matthews set forth a compelling argument for disqualifying Judge Clark to avoid an appearance of partiality.
{¶ 5} "Trial judges are entitled to exercise considerable discretion in the management of cases on their dockets, especially in discovery matters, and any alleged abuse of that discretion should be remedied on appeal, not in an affidavit-of-disqualification proceeding." In re Disqualification of Holbrook, 138 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2013-Ohio-5863, 3 N.E.3d 201, ¶ 7. Although Mr. Matthews strongly disagrees with the way that Judge Clark has managed discovery in the underlying case, "this is not the appropriate forum in which to review the propriety of a judge's discovery decisions," In re Disqualification of McMonagle, 164 Ohio St.3d 1251, 2021-Ohio-2834, 173 N.E.3d 1251, ¶ 5.
{¶ 6} Similarly, "this is not the appropriate forum to determine whether a trial judge's decision complies with an appellate-court order," In re Disqualification of Saffold, 157 Ohio St.3d 1214 2019-Ohio-3838, 134 N.E.3d 214, ¶ 4. Judges have, on occasion, "been removed from cases for refusing to comply with mandates from higher courts." In re Disqualification of Carr, 155 Ohio St.3d 1249, 2018-Ohio-5260, 120 N.E.3d 852, ¶ 6, citing Columbus v. Hayes, 68 Ohio App.3d 184, 189, 587 N.E.2d 939 (10th Dist.1990) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial