## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 2823 I n re E R I CH S PE CHT, doi ng busi ness as Andro i d Da ta Co r po r at i o n, a nd T HE A ND RO ID ’ S D UNG EON I NCO RPORATE D , P etitio ners .

Petition fo r a Wri t of Mand amus tothe United S t ates Di strictC our tfor the NorthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C2572

—H arry D . L einenw eber, Ju dge
.
S UB MI TT ED A UGUS T 23, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 8, 2010

BeforeE ASTER

BROOK ,Chie f Judge,andKANNEand H AMILTON,C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, C h i e

f Ju dge . In 1 99 9 Er i chS pec ht start ed a hom e business, wh i ch he c al l ed A nd ro i d D ata Cor po r at i o n. I t o ffer ed web si te ho st i ngs er vi ce s. S pec ht re gi ste re d “ A nd ro i d D ata” as a federa l tr adem ar k for h is b u sin e s s, w h ich fold ed in 2 00 2. Sp ec h t a llow ed h is re gi str ati on f orthe dom ai n nam e “ androi dd at a.com ” t o l apse, and the cor pora ti on was d i sso l ved und erst ate l aw . S pecht di d not use the m ar k agai n unti l 20 09

— when,2 N o. 10

- 2823 havi ng l ear ned about Googl e’ s An droi d opera ti ng sy ste m f o r mo b i l e p h o n e s , h e r e g i s t e r e d t h e d o ma i n n a me “androi d-data. com ”, at tem pted to re surr ect the c or pora tio n by se n d in g b ac kd at ed rep or ts a n d f ee s t o t h e Illino is S ec r et ar y of S ta te , a nd fi l ed su i t ag ains t Goo g l e an d 47 othe r defe nd ants f ortr adem ar k infr i ngem ent. AT &T Mo b i l i t y o ffe r s mo b i l e p h o n e s e r v i c e . S o me devi ces w i th the A nd roid o p er ati ng sy ste m ar e s ol d by AT&T o r u s e d o n i t s n e t wo r k

. S pe c htd i d not i nc l ud e AT& T a m o ngthe 4 8 def en d an ts. Had he do ne s o , the case w ou ld n ot hav e been assigned to Jud ge L einen w eber, w hos e w ife (Lyn n M artin) i s a m em ber of A T & T ’s board o fdi r ec to r s. The c o ur t’ s au to m ate d c o nfl i ct
- ch ec k i ng sys tem pre vents any ass i gnm ent o fl i ti gat i on byo r aga i nst AT & T to J ud ge Lei ne n w eb er i n l i ght o f28 U
. S. C . §455(b) ( 5) ( i ) , wh i ch dis quali fi es any j ud ge w hose spouse ( oro therr el at ive w i thi n the thi rd degr ee) i s “ a partyto the proce edi ng, o r an o ffi cer, director, o r tr ustee ofa party ”. J ud ge Lei nenw eberand Lynn M ar ti n al so own st ocki n A T& T, a furtherdi squal i fi cati on under §455 (b)( 4). A fterthe sui t had be en p en d ing f orabo ut a yea r

— an d at th e close ofd is c overy

— S pec htpr o po se d t o a m en d hi s co m pla i nt to add A T& T M obi l i ty and thre e oth er w i re l ess car ri er s ( T-M obi l e, S pri nt, and V er i zon) as def e n d a n ts 49 to 52 . Jud ge L ein en w eb er rec og n ize d th at, i f he gr anted thi s m oti on, he woul d be disqual i fi ed fro m pr o ce edingfur th er . He de ni ed th e m o ti o n, howev er, a nd als o d ec lin ed to re c u se h im se lf. T h is l ed Sp ec h t to file a p et itio n for a w rit of m an d am u s, c on te n d in g th a t itN o. 10

- 2823 3

cre ate s a n appearance o fi m propri ety, and thus r equi re s re cusalunder §4 55( a) , f ora j ud ge to act on am oti on th at, i f gran ted , w ou ld req uire recu sal un d er §455(b). Sp ech t con ten d s th at if th e m otion d id n o t d isq ua li fy the j ud ge autom ati cal l y, i t s houl d have be en assig n ed to a di ffer en t j ud g e. A pet i ti o n f o r mandamus i s th e r i g ht w ay to obt ai n re vi ew by thi s co urt ofar gum ents und er §455 (a). U nited Sta tes v. B a li s t r i e ri, 77 9 F
. 2d 1191 , 12 05 (7t h C ir. 1985); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Boyd, 2 0 8 F
. 3 d 6 3 8 , 64 5 (7th C ir. 2000), rem an d e d on a un related i ssu e, 531 U
. S. 1135 ( 2001 )

. W e a ske d both Goo gl e a nd A T& T M ob i l i ty to re spond to the pet i ti on; theyhave done so. W e a l so i nv i t e d J udge Le i ne nwe b e r t o r e s po nd

. S e e F e d. R
. App

. P. 2 1 ( b ) ( 4 )

. He de c l i ne d. Se cti on 455(b) ( 5) ( i ) does not disqual i fy Jud ge Leine nweb er . Li ke §4 55 ( f ) , i t appl i es o nl y t o the re lat ion between a j ud ge and a party. A T& T M obi l i ty is not a “p arty” to th is case. N or doe s § 4 5 5(b)(4) requ ire the j ud ge’ s r ecusal

. I t d ea ls w i th si tuati ons i n w hi ch th e ju d g e o r fam ily m em b er “h as a fin an c ial in te re st in th e su bj ec t m at te r o fthe co nt r o ve r syo r a pa r tyt o the pr o ce e d i n g, o r a n y o th e r i n t e r e s tth a tc o u l d b e s u b s t an t i a l l y a ffe c t e d b y th e o u t c o me o fth e p r o c e e d i n g ”

. AT &T M ob ility is n ota “p ar ty ,” a n d it w ou ld n otbe p os sib le to saythatei therJ ud ge Lei nenw ebero r Lynn M arti n has a “ fi nanci ali nter est ” i n the contr ove rs y. Goog l e r ather th an A T & T is re s p o n sib le for th e c h oic e o f n am e. If Spec ht pr e v a i l s , Go o g l e wi l l e i the r c ha ng e the na me or s t r i k e a d e a l t o l i c e n s e “ A n d r o i d ” fr o m S p e c h t ; AT &T i s ind i ffer ent. Goog l e doe s no t char ge eit h er w i re l ess pr o vi der s o r ha nds etmake r s an y fee f o r us i ngthe4 N o. 10

- 2823 Andro i d o per at i ngs y st em, an d no o ne s ug g es ts tha t th e o ut c o me o f thi s l i t i g a t i o n c o ul d l e a d i t t o c ha nge t hat p olic y. N or i s t h er e a n y re alis tic ch an c e t h at th e s u it coul d l ead to fi nanci all i abi l ity forA T& T orany othe r w i re l ess se rv i ce pr ovi der. N ot onl y Goo gl e but al so the hand set m ake rs have agr eed to i nd em ni fy w ire l ess provi ders f orany los se s that s tem fro m Goog l e’ s cho i ces. Specht contend s that Lynn M ar ti n’s r eputati on co uld be “subst anti al l y a ffecte d” ( §455 ( b) ( 5) ( i i i ) ) i nd ependent of A T& T’s fi nanci ali nt er est s. Yet the o nl y e ffect w oul d be f avo rabl e t o M ar ti n: havi ng se en to it t h at A T& T i s pro tect ed by i nd em n ifi cati on, A T& T M obi l i ty’ s bo ar d of d ire c to rs co m es off w ell. Se cti on 4 55( a) i s a notherm att er . J ud ge Lei nenw eber had a choi ce: Grant the m ot ion t o add A T& T, then ste p asi d e, ordeny the m oti on a nd co nti nue pres i ding. Fo rg et i nde m ni fi ca ti o n f o r a mom en t an d suppo se tha t g r an ting the m oti on co uld have expose d A T& T M obi l i ty to a l o ss . Th en , by d en yin g t h e m ot ion , th e jud ge w ou ld have prot ecte d AT & T f ro m exposure to d am age s

— co nfe r r i n ga fi n a n c i a l b e n e fi to n i te v e n th o u g h, b y hy po th

es i s, § 45 5(b) pr ev en ts the j udg e f r o m m akinga ny r ul i ng i n whi c h AT&T ha s a fi na nc i a l i nt e r e s t
. Go o g l e c o nt e nd s th at Sp ec h t’s m ot ion to ad d A T & T w as m ad e o n ly in the hope of disqual i fyi ng the j ud ge. Bu t th e requi re m en ts of §45 5(b) a ppl y t o wea kc l ai m s as wel l a s st r o ng ones ; §4 55(b) pre vents a j u d ge with a fi nanci ali nter est, o r wi tha r el at i ve o n a l i ti g an t’ s bo ar d, fr o m de ci di ng w heth erthe cl ai m i s m er i tor i ou s. D en yi ng a m oti on t o add a partydoes notte chnic al l y v i ol ate §4 55(b) ye t, because i t has the sam e effect as gr anti ng the m oti onN o. 10

- 2823 5 and then di sm i ssi ng the sui t o n the m er i ts, it c re ates an appearance p ro bl em under §4 55( a)

. S ee Li l j e b e rg v . Heal th S ervic es A cqu isitio n C o rp . , 486 U
. S. 847 (1988). That appeara nce probl em co uld, and shoul d, have been sol ved by re fer ringto ano therj ud ge the m oti on to add A T& T M obi l i ty as a p ar ty. I fa j ud ge w i th no i nter es t i n the outco m e deni ed the m oti on, then Ju d ge L ein en w eb er co u ld res u m e h is ro le. T h e n or m in thi s ci rcui t i s f orthe j ud ge al re ady as si gned to the case to ad d re ss an y m ot ion for re c u sa l, a n d th at p ra c tic e is a sound one. M ost m oti ons f or re cusal can be r eso l ved qui ck l y a nd ac cu ra te l y b y the a ss i g ne d j udg e, wi th o ut the del ay and expens e th at would be occa si oned by a r outi ne r efer ra l to a di ffer ent j ud ge. W hat J ud ge Le i ne nwe b e r s ho ul d ha v e r e fe r r e d i s no t the mot i on f or hi s di s qu a l i fi c a t i o n, b ut the mot i o n t o a dd AT&T a s a d efendant, bec ause the o rderdenyi ng tha t m oti on i t s e l fc o n fe r r e d a b e n e fi to n AT &T ( f o r i ts a v e d AT &T th e le ga l fee s re q u ire d to m ou n t a d efe n se , eve n if A T& T i s no t a t a ny m ate ri alr i sk of a n adver se j ud gm ent)

. Thi s i s ho w the dist ri ct j ud ge h an d led the m oti on to ad d a p ar ty inIn reKans as Pub l i c Em pl oye e s Re t i r e m e nt Sys t em , 8 5 F. 3d 1353 , 13 61–6 2 ( 8th Ci r. 19 96)

. W e hav e not f ound a cl ean ho l ding that th is pr oce du re i s r equi r ed, b uttha t do es no t pr ev en t ado ptingthe s en sible ap p roach as an initialm atter. Specht conte nd s that j ustf i l i ngthe mo t i o n t o a dd A T & T M obili t y a s a pa rty requ ired Jud ge L einen w eber’s p er m an en t re m ov al fro m t h e s u it. T h at st ep w ou ld not i m p lem ent § 455( a) , however

. I fano therj ud ge6 N o. 10

- 2823 denie d the m oti on, ther e would b e nei theractual i m propri ety, n or an appearance o fi m propri ety, i n J ud ge L ein en w eb er ’s fu rt h er p ar tic ip at ion . A rea so n ab le, w elli nfo rm ed obs er ver( the a pp l i cabl e criter i on, se e In re S he r wi n - Wi l l i ams Co

. , 607 F.3d 474 , 477 (7th C ir. 2 010)) w oul d not per cei ve a probl em . M or eov er, ther e i s a pow er ful re aso n w hy fi l i ng such a m oti on s houl d not i tse l fr equi re r ecusal

. Li ti ga n ts ar e no t e nti tl ed to pi c kthe i r j ud g e s . Unl i k e s o me s t a te sys t e ms, the fe deral j u d i ci ar y doe s no t per m i t a l i ti gant to obj ect to the ini ti al l y a ssi gned j ud ge a nd r equi re the substi tuti on ofano ther

. M ai ntai ni ng the o ri gi nal, r andom se l ecti on p rom otes both the fact an d the ap p earan ce of i m p artia lity . See , e.g., In r eNat i on al Uni on F i r eIn s u r an c eCo ., 839 F.2d 1226 (7t h C ir . 1988); Ne w York City Hous i ng D evelo pm ent C o rp. v. Ha rt, 796 F.2d 976 ( 7th Cir. 1986). I fa l l a l i ti g an t ha d t o do to ej ec t a j udg e f r o m the case

— perhaps a fterthe j ud ge had m ade so m e r ulings unfav or abl e t o the l itigant, as J ud ge Lei nenw eberhas m ade r ul i ng s unf av o r ab l e to S pec ht

— w as to propose ad d ing a new p a r t y kn ow n to req uire the j ud ge’s re cusal, then l i ti gants co uld pl ay gam es w ith j ud i ci al as sig n m en ts . E ve ry f e d e ra l j u d ge is re c u se d ins o me situat ions: a j ud ge m ay ha ve a ch il d w h o w orks for a cor pora ti on o r l aw fi rm , o r own st ocki n so m e co rpor ati o n, o r ha ve a pe ns i o n from a j o b be f o r e j o i ni ngthe be nc h. A l i ti g an t want i ngt o mani pul at e the a ss i g nm en t coul d consul t the j ud ge’ s r ecusall i st and fi l e a m oti on to ad d as a p arty an en tity on that l ist. B y Sp e c ht ’s ligh ts th at m ot ion , no m at te r h ow ins u b st an tia l, w ou ld d isq u ali fy the j ud ge. But cour ts do not al l ow such easyN o. 10

- 2823 7

m ani pu l ati on

— ei therby pro posi ng to add defe nd ants, o r b y s ui ngthe j ud ge an d the n c o nt en di ngtha t he mus t s t e p a s i de. S ee R o nwi n v . St at eBarof Ar izona , 68 6 F.2d 692 , 701 (9th C ir. 1981); No tting ha m v. A ctin g Ju dg es o f D istrict C o urt, 200 6 U .S. D ist . L EXIS 3 0 1 4 1 ( S

. D. I nd

. M a r . 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 )

. We ho l d tha tfi l i nga m oti on to a dd a par t y do e s no t i t s e l f di s qu a l i fy a j ud g e . Th e g r ant o f such a m oti on m i ght do so; the m oti on i tse l fdoes not
. J ud g e Leine nweb ers ho ul d no t ha ve a ct ed o n the m ot ion to ad d A T & T M ob ility as a d efe n d an t. T h is d oe s n otlea d to a w r i t o f m an d am u s, h ow ev er . Th er e is no poi nt i n dir ecting the j ud ge to tr an sfe r the m oti on t o on e o f h is c olle ag u es if th e o u tc om e o ft h at p ro c es s is f or eor daine d

— so cl ear, i nd eed, thati t would be an ab us e o fdi scr et i o n f o r a ny o th erj udg e to g r an t th e m o ti o n. The thr ee mem bers of thi s pan elha ve no i nter esti n the l i ti gat i on a nd can re sol ve the di spute i m m ediatel y. I t would i nd eed be an abuse o fdi scr eti on to g r an t th e m o ti o n. Di sc o ve r y ha s cl o se d; granti ngthe m oti on would undu l y prolo n g the l i ti gat i on. I t i s no t a s i fS pec htl ea r ne d o nl y thr o ug h di sc o ve r y tha t AT& T, S pr i nt, T- M o bi l e, a nd Ve r i zo n s el l pho ne s th atus e th e A n d ro i d o p er at in g s ys te m ; th is in for m at ion is w id ely ad ver ti sed. The wir el ess pro vi ders coul d have be en nam ed a s par ti es f ro m the outse t. But that w oul d not ha ve serve d a good pu rp ose, nor w ou ld ad d ing ext ra defen dan ts b e he l pfulno w. Go o g l e, no t A T &T ora ny o th erwi r el es s ca r r i er, c ho se the na m e “Andr o id” for th e o pe r a t i ngs y s t e m. I fS pe c hti s e nt i tl ed t o a nyr e med y ( a su bj ec t o n whi chwe ex p re ss no v i ew) , da m ag es a nd equi tabl e r el i efag ai nst Goo gl e wil l be full y e ffecti ve to8 N o. 10

- 2823 vin d ica te Sp ec h t’s righ ts
. T h e re is n o re as on w h y t h is su it n ee ds addi ti o na l de fen dan ts
. I t be g anwi th4 7 defen dan ts t o o many ( r ai singthe q uest i o n whe th erS pec ht chose the l i st ofdefendants to i nd uce unw ar ra nted paym en ts in s et tle m en t); th er e is n o re as on w h y it s h ou ld proce ed w i th 51 defendants to o m any. This m eans that Ju d ge Lei nenw eber ’ s f ai l ure to re fer th e m o t io n to anoth er j ud ge w as incon seq ue nt ial

. Th ere i s no r eas on wh y he cannot bring thi s l i ti gation to a concl usi on i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. One fi nal subj ect. Goog l e a nd A T& T M obi l ity have as k ed us to ke ep co nfi den ti althe l an g ua g e o fthe i r i ndem ni ty agr eem ent and som e o therdocum ents. Other parti ci pants i n th e w i re l ess co m m unica ti on business m i ght b e abl e t o obt ai n so m e neg oti ati ng advanta ge b y kn o wi n gt he a g r e e me n t ’ s t e r ms . G o o g l e a n d AT &T do not conte nd , h ow eve r, thatthe ter m s a re tr ade se

cre ts. Docum en ts that affect the di sposi ti on o ffedera l litig at ion are p r e s u m p tiv ely op en to p u b lic v iew , eve n if the l i ti gants st ro ngl y pr eferse cre cy, unl ess a sta tute, r ule , or p riv ileg e jus tifie s c on fid en tia lity . See , e .g ., B a xter Intern a tio na l, Inc. v. A bbo tt La bo rato ries , 29 7 F
. 3d 544 (7th C ir. 2002); U nion O il C o . of Califor nia v. Le avell, 22 0 F
. 3 d 5 6 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )

. Be cause the mo t i o ns t o s e a l do not conte nd thatthe sta nd ar ds ofB a xtera nd U nion O il ha ve b ee n s at i sfi ed, the y a r e den i ed. I fGoogle a nd A T& T w anted to ke ep the docum ents’ te rm s secret, they sh oul d no t ha ve pr o ffer ed th em i n r es po ns e to S pec ht’s m o ti o n.N o. 10

- 2823 9 T h e m ot ion s t o s ea l are d en ie d . Th e p et itio n for a w rit o fma nd a mus i s de ni e d.

9- 8- 10