Title: In re Disqualification of Holbrook

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Holbrook, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-5863.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF HOLBROOK. 
PARISI v. MATHEWS. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Holbrook, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2013-Ohio-5863.] 
Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Judges are entitled to 
express dissatisfaction with an attorney’s dilatory actions in a way that 
promotes public confidence in the integrity, dignity, and impartiality of the 
judiciary. 
(No. 13-AP-103—Decided November 21, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 
Case No. 12-CV-2858. 
____________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Plaintiff Georgianna I. Parisi has filed an affidavit with the clerk of 
this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Michael J. Holbrook 
from presiding over any further proceedings in case No. 12-CV-2858, a legal-
malpractice action pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. 
{¶ 2} Parisi claims that Judge Holbrook is biased and prejudiced against 
her because he issued a discovery order that was “impossible” for her to comply 
with and because the judge made “disparaging” comments to her.  Judge 
Holbrook has responded in writing to Parisi’s allegations, asserting that he does 
not harbor any bias or prejudice against her.  Marion H. Little Jr., counsel for 
defendants, has also filed an affidavit stating that Judge Holbrook has been fair 
and impartial to all parties. 
{¶ 3} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 
order the disqualification of Judge Holbrook. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Judge Holbrook’s discovery order 
{¶ 4} Judge Holbrook inherited the underlying case in December 2012, 
and at a January 24, 2013 status conference, he gave Parisi two additional weeks 
to respond to the defendants’ outstanding document requests.  At the next status 
conference, on March 12, 2013, Judge Holbrook found that Parisi had not 
complied with his previous order, and he then ordered that she take the requested 
documents to a copy shop, pay for copies, and deliver the copies to defense 
counsel by 5:00 p.m. that day.  The judge further stated that Parisi would be 
sanctioned if she failed to comply. 
{¶ 5} In her affidavit, Parisi claims that compliance with the judge’s 
order was impossible because the documents were too voluminous to copy in one 
day, and when she informed Judge Holbrook’s staff that the copy shop indicated 
that it could not complete the job in a day, the staff advised her that the judge 
stood by his order.  According to Parisi, the shop later estimated that copying the 
documents would take about 30 days and cost $9,574.50.  Parisi argues that under 
the civil rules, she should not bear the burden of paying for defendants’ discovery 
requests.  Accordingly, she has moved Judge Holbrook to require defendants to 
pay the copying costs, but at the time she filed her affidavit of disqualification, 
Judge Holbrook had not yet ruled on her motion. 
{¶ 6} In response to Parisi’s claims, Judge Holbrook states that when he 
was assigned this case, he discovered “severe discovery problems,” including 
Parisi’s failure to produce requested documents.  He admittedly became frustrated 
with Parisi at the March 12 status conference because she had not complied with 
his previous order; nonetheless, he claims that he gave her another opportunity to 
comply by the end of that day.  Judge Holbrook avers that he was “trying to get 
the matter to trial” and that he did not issue the March 12 order with the 
expectation that Parisi’s compliance was impossible.  Finally, he states that he had 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
not yet ruled on Parisi’s pending motion about copying costs because the motion 
was not ripe for decision at the time she filed her affidavit of disqualification. 
{¶ 7} 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.  Accordingly, it is well settled that an affidavit of 
disqualification “is not a vehicle to contest matters of substantive or procedural 
law.”  In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-5484, 
798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4.  And a party’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with a court’s 
legal rulings, even if those rulings may be erroneous, does not constitute bias or 
prejudice.  In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 
803 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 4.  On the record here, Parisi has not demonstrated that Judge 
Holbrook’s discovery order was motivated by a personal bias against her, and 
therefore the judge’s order is not grounds for disqualification. 
Judge Holbrook’s alleged disparaging comments 
{¶ 8} Parisi also alleges that Judge Holbrook made disparaging 
comments to her at the January and March status conferences.  Specifically, Parisi 
claims that Judge Holbrook stated, “Nobody’s going to believe you, you know 
that, don’t you?” and “What am I going to do with you?”  Judge Holbrook 
acknowledges making the comments, but he places them in context, indicating 
that he was attempting to explain to Parisi that if she could not produce any 
evidence in discovery, then no one would believe her claims at trial.  As to the 
second comment, Judge Holbrook states that at that point, he had become 
“absolutely frustrated with [Parisi’s] noncompliance with the discovery process.” 
{¶ 9} Judges “are certainly entitled to express dissatisfaction with 
attorneys’ dilatory tactics inside and outside the courtroom,” but that 
dissatisfaction should be expressed in a way that promotes the public confidence 
in the integrity, dignity, and impartiality of the judiciary.  In re Disqualification of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 10.  Given 
Judge Holbrook’s explanation for his comments, his words do not reflect a 
“ ‘hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will * * * with the formation of a fixed 
anticipatory judgment’ ” that would mandate his removal from this case.  See 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, 469, 132 N.E. 
2d 191 (1956) (setting forth the definition of the term “bias or prejudice”).  
Accordingly, Parisi’s claim here is not well taken. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 10} “The statutory right to seek disqualification of a judge is an 
extraordinary remedy.  * * * A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be 
biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome 
these presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 
2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Those presumptions have not been 
overcome in this case. 
{¶ 11} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Holbrook. 
________________________