## 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

- 1639 I N RE : S HERW IN -W ILLIAM S C OMPAN Y, P etitio ner.

Pe tition fo r W rito f M andamusfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the Eastern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No s. 07- C- 0441, 07- C- 0303, 07- C- 0865 &10-C -0075

—

L ynnA delm an, Judge

. S UB MI TT ED M AR CH 17, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UNE 7, 2010

B efore K ANN E , R OV NER, an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . In thi s peti tio n f ora w ri t o fm andam us, Sher w i n-W i l l i am s C om pany ask s us to or der Di str i ct Ju dge Lynn A del m an to r ecuse hi m sel ffro m pre si di ngo ve r f o urc as es i n whi ch i t i s a defen dan t. S he r wi nW i l liam s argues that a l aw r evi ew ar ti cl e co - w ri tte n by Ju d ge A d elm an cr ea te s a n a p p ea ra n c e t h at th e jud ge w ill deci de the case othe r than on the m er i ts. Ju d ge A del m an den i ed S he r wi n-W i l l i ams’ s m o ti o n fo r r ec us ali n the dist ri ct c ourt, and w e do th e sa m e forthe peti ti on f or w ri t o fm andam us.2 N o. 10

- 1639 T h e b as is of Sh er w in -W illiam s’s p et itio n is a 2 00 7 a rt icle J ud ge A del m an co- author ed i n re sponse to cri ticis m o f five d ec isio n s is su ed by th e W isc on sin Su p re m e C ou rtin 2005
. One ofthe opi ni ons disc ussed was Thom as ex re l. G ram li ng v. M alle tt, 701 N
. W
. 2d 523 ( W i s. 2005 ) , in w h ich th e W i sc o ns i n S upr eme Co ur t he l d tha t a pl aint i ffwho coul d p ro ve t hat he w as i nj ured byi ngest i ng wh i te l ead carbonat e pi gm ents i n hi s ho m e but coul d not i denti fy the m anufa cture r ofthe pig m ents coul d nonethel ess r eco veri n a s uitag ai nst pi gm ent m anufa cture rs . J ud ge A del m an i s now presi ding und er dive rs i ty j u ris

dict i on ove r f our case s aga i nst m anufa cture rs of w hi te l e a d c a rb o na t e p i g men t s . In e a c h c a s e the p l a i nt i ff s s e ek r ec o ve r y b as ed o n Thom as . S he r wi n- W i l l i ams i s o ne o fthe defe nd ants i n thos e ca ses, and th e com pany ask ed J ud ge A del m an to r ecuse hi m sel ffro m the c as es und er 28 U .S. C. § 4 55( a) o n the gr ound that a r eas onabl e per son woul d b el i ev e, ba se d o n J udg e Ad el m an ’ s ar ti cl e, tha t th e j ud ge i s unabl e t o deci de the case i m parti al l y. J ud ge Ad e l ma n d e n i e d th e m o t i o n, a n d S h e r win - Wi l l i a ms r en ews i ts a r g um en ts i n i ts mandamus pet i ti o n. U nd ertr adit i onaltheo ri es ofnegl i ge n c e and st ri ct pr o duct s l i ab i l i ty, the pl aint i ffi n Thom as co uld notr eco ver aga i nst the pi gm ent m anufacture rs bec ause he co uld not es ta b lish w h ich co m p an y c au se d h is inj u rie s. A rt i c le I, S e c t i o n 9 , o fth e Wi s c o n s i n C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o mi s e s , h o we v e r, tha t“ [ e ] v e r y p e r s o n i s e nt i t l e d t o a cer ta i n r e med y inth e la w s fo r all inj u rie s, or w ro n gs ,” an d th e W isc on sin Suprem e Cour t has co ncl ud ed fro m this p ro vi si on that,

“ ‘ [ w ] hen an a dequ ate r em edy o r f or um does notexi st to re sol ve disputes o r provi de due proce ss, the cour ts,N o. 10

- 1639 3 und erthe W i sco nsi n Con stituti on, can f ashi on a n adequate r em edy. ’ ” Coll i ns v. EliLi l l y Co. , 34 2 N
. W
. 2d 37, 45 ( W i s. 1 98 4) ( quoti ngD
. H
. v. State, 25 1 N
. W
. 2d 196, 20 1 (W is. 1977)). Previou sly, the W iscons in Sup rem e C ou rt cra ft e d s uc h a r e med y f o r a p l a i nt i ffwh o c o mpl a i ne d o f bi r thde fec ts a l l eg edly r esu l tingfr o m e xpo su r e to the d ru g d iet h yls tilb es tr ol. Coll i ns , 342 N .W .2d at49 . A ll die thyl sti lbest ro lpro du cts shar ed the sam e che m ical for m u la, an d th ey w er e o fte n p ro d u c ed in a ge n er ic for m . Id. at 44
. Pr es cr i pti o ns wer e fr eque nt l y fi l l ed wi th

ou t re ga rd to m an u fac tu re r or br an d

. Id. Thus , the pl a i nt i ff wa s un ab l e t o e s t ab l i s h whi c h c o mpa nythat m an uf ac tu r ed o r mar k et ed the dr ugha r m ed he r, a nd sh e w as leftw ith ou t a n y re c ou rs e. Id. at 44-45. T he cou rt i n C o llins hel d that i f the pla i nti ff could es tabli sh th at h er birt h d efe c ts res u lte d from e x p os u re t o d iet h yls tilbe st r o la nd tha t th e defen dan ts ’ cond uc t i n pr o ducing or m ar ke tin g it c on st itu te d a b re ac h o fd u ty , sh e c ou ld re cove r aga i nst a ny co m pany t h at m anufa cture d or m ar k et ed th e ty pe o f di ethy l st i lbe st r o l to w hich s he w as exposed

— that i s, ag ai ns t a ny co m pany thatco ntribu te d to h er risk of inj u ry . Id. at49

- 50. The c o ur t i n Thom as ru led t hat the sa m e a pp ro ach w as j usti fi ed f orcas es i nvol vi ng wh ite l ead carbonat e pi g m en ts. 701 N. W
. 2d at5 58
. The c o ur t r ea so ne d tha t th e ri sk- contr ibuti on theor y c oul d ap plyev en tho ugh such p igm ents, unl i ke die thyl sti lbest ro l, di d not s hare an i dent ica lchem i calf or m ula ; i t was eno ugh thatthe pig

m en ts w er e fu n c tio n ally int er c h an ge ab le, p h ys ica lly i nd i stingui shabl e, and cr eat ed equi val ent risks o fl ead p ois on in g. Id. a t5 5 9

- 6 2
. A n o th e r d i ffe r e n c e fr o m Coll i ns4 N o. 10

- 1639

was tha t th e pl aint i ffi n Thom as was no t en ti re l y wi th o ut a r e med y f o r h i s i nj u r i e s . H e a l s o s u e d h i s f o r me r l a nd

lord s fo r th eir n e g l i g e n t m ain te n an c e o f th e h ou se in w hi ch he was expose d to l ead, and he re cove re d against th eir ins u re rs . Id. a t 55 2. Ye t, e xpl aine d the c o urt, the W i sco nsi n Consti tuti on pro m i ses notj ust a r em edy f or ev ery i nj ur y, b uta l so a r emedy f o r e ve r y wro ng, a nd the pi gm ent m anufa cture rs and l andlo rds were charg ed wi thdi ffer en t wro ng s: the manuf ac tu r er s, wi thmaking p ois on ou s p ro d u c ts ; th e la n d lord s, w ith n eg lige n tly m ain ta in in g re al e st at e. Id. a t 5 54. A r em edy to m atch th e m an u fac tu re rs ’ w ro n g w as st ill w an tin g, an d so it w as ap p ro p ria te to fas h ion on e. Id. at 551- 52. The d ecisio n in Thom as was m uch m al i gned, and so w er e four othe r 2005 d eci si ons ofthe cour t. In re sponse to th is c rit icis m , Jud ge A d elm an co -au th or ed a n art icle prai si ng the W i sco nsi n Suprem e C ourt ’ s use of i ts j ud i ci al p ow er . L yn n A d elm an & Sh elle y F i te , Exer cis i ng Judi ci al P ow er : A R es ponse t o the Wis consin Suprem e C ourt’s C ri ti cs , 91 M ar q . L
. R ev . 42 5 (20 07 ). Ju d ge A d elm an ’ s a r tic le re vi ew ed the fi ve c ases and defended the r ulings a s ap p rop riate exercises o f t he high cou rt’s j ud ici al pow er, g i ve n the uni que r o l e th e st at e co ns ti tu ti o n a ss i g ns the c ou rtin o ve rs ee in g t h e a d m in ist ra tio n of j u st ice
. Id. He ex p li cit l y di sc l ai m ed an y o pi ni o n o n the mer i ts o fa ny of th e c as es . Id. at42 8. J ud ge A del m an di d com m ent that, to the exte nt the f ac ts i n Thom as s ug g es te d tha t th e pl ainti ff co ul d o th er wi se ha ve no r ec o ve r y from a pi g m en t m anufa cture r, he thought i t was a “posi ti ve devel opm ent” f orthe cour t t o ensure that“the door s o fthe cour thouse re m ai ned open. ” Id. at44 6.N o. 10

- 1639 5 M andam us i s the appropr i at e ve hi cl e fora chal l enge to a di s t r i c t j ud g e ’ s de ni a l o f a mot i o n f o r r e c us al bas ed on ap p ea ra n c e o fb i as . U nited Sta tes v. D iek em per, ___ F.3 d
___, 20 10 W L 16 88 52 4, at *4 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ); In re U nited Sta tes , 572 F
. 3d 30 1, 30 7- 08 ( 7th Ci r . 20 09 )
. Our r e v i e w i s de n o vo. I n r e U nited Sta tes , 57 2 F
. 3d at 307; Hook v
. M cDade, 89 F .3d 35 0, 35 3-5 4 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); U nited Sta tes v. B a listrieri, 779 F.2d 119 1, 1203 ( 7th Cir. 1985). Se cti on 4 55( a) pro vi des that“[ a] ny j usti ce, j ud ge, o r m agist r a te j ud ge of th e U nited States sh alldisq ua li fy h im sel fi n any proce edi ng i n w hi ch hi s i m parti al i ty m i ght r eas onabl y b e quest i oned. ” In eva l uati ng w h ether a j udg e’ s i m par ti al i tym i g htre as o nabl y be que st i o ne d, o ur i nquir y i s “ fro m t h e per specti ve ofa reaso na ble obs er ver who i s i n

f o r me d o f a l l th es u r r o u n d i n gf a c t s a n d c i r c u mstan ces . ” C hen ey v . U nited Sta tes D ist. Co urt, 54 1 U.S
. 91 3, 924 ( 2004 ) ( Sca l i a, J
. , i n cham ber s) ( ci tat i on o m i tted ); See a l s o S a o P a o l o S t a t e o

f t h eF e d e r a t i v eR ep u b l i co f B r a z i l v . A m. To ba cco C o ., 5 3 5 U .S . 229 , 232 -33 (20 02 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hol l and, 519 F.3d 909 , 913 (9th Cir. 2008); In reBas ci ano , 54 2 F.3 d 95 0, 95 6 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ), cert den ied, 129 S. Ct
. 1401 (U
. S. Fe b . 23, 20 09 ); In re M cC a rthey, 36 8 F
. 3d 1266 , 12 69 ( 10th C ir. 20 04 ); U nited Sta tes v. C herry, 33 0 F
. 3d 658, 66 5 ( 4th C ir. 20 03 ). T h at an u n re as on ab le p er so n, focu sin g on on ly on e a sp ec t o f th e s to ry , m igh t p e r c e ive a ris k of b ias is i rr el evant
. U nit e d S t at e s v. Bonds , 18 F. 3d 1327, 13 31 ( 6th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )
. Co ns e qu e nt l y, wh e r e a j ud g e ’ s c o mm ents, wri ting s, o r r ul i ng s ar e th e ba si s f o r a r ec us alr eque st, o ur anal ysi s a ssum es that a r eas onabl e per son i s f am i l i ar w ith th e d oc u m en t s atiss u e, as w ell as th e c on te x t in6 N o. 10

- 1639

w hi ch theycam e into bei ng. See Whi t ev. NFL , 58 5 F
. 3d 1129 , 1139-40 (8th Cir. 2009). I n a d d iti on to bein g w ell -i nform ed abou t the surr o undi ngf ac ts a nd c i r cumst an ce s, f o r p urpos es o fo ur anal ysi s, a re aso nabl e perso n i s a “thoughtful observ er r athe r tha n . . . a hy per se ns i ti ve o r undu l y s us pi ci o us perso n. ” In reM as on , 9 1 6 F. 2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990), quote d in O ’Regan v . Arbit rati on Forum s, Inc. , 24 6 F
. 3d 975, 9 8 8 ( 7 th Cir. 2001), a nd Hook, 89 F .3d at35 4; a cco rd Hol l and, 5 1 9 F .3 d at91 3. Fin ally , a rea so n ab le p er so n is abl e t o appreci ate the si gni fi cance ofthe f acts in lig ht o f re l evantl ega lst andards and j ud i ci alprac ti ce an d can d isc er n w h et h er an y a p p ea ra n c e o f im p ro p rie ty is m er el y a n i l l us ion
. See C hen ey, 541 U .S. at 9 24 ; See a lso In r e M as on , 91 6 F
. 2d at 387 ( concl ud i ng no appearance of bias create d by fact th at d istri ct j ud ge ha d , b efore appoint m ent t o bench, m ade pol i ti calco ntributi on t o party i n case bef or e hi m ; j ud ges w i th pol i tica l ti es re gul ar l y c asttho se i nter est s a si d e a nd r eso l ve case s o n facts an d l aw ). Sher w i n-W i l l iam s co ntends thata re aso nabl e obser ver co ul d c o nc l ude fr o m J udg e Ad el m an ’ s ar ti cl e t ha t he bel i eve s that Thom as was c o r r ec tly de ci ded an d tha t he ther ef or e wil lnotco nsi der S h er w i n-W i l l i am s’ s a tta cks o n Thom as f ai rl y. A s s ugges ted i n ourea rl i erchar acte ri zatio n of th e a rt icle , w e d o n otth in k t h at a re as on ab le p e r s o n, h a v i n ga c t u a l l y r e a d th e a r t i c l e , wo u l d thi nk th atJu dge Adel m anha d e xpr es se d a ny v i ew a s to the m er i ts i n Thom as in a r g u i n g th at it an d th e o th er d ec isi o ns fel lwi th i n the W i sc o ns i n h i g h c o ur t’ s au th o r i ty
. ButN o. 10

- 1639 7 the b i gge r f ai l i ng i n thi s con tenti on i s that, as J ud ge A d elm an n ot ed in d en yin g th e m ot ion for re c u sa l, h is view s of Thom as , to the ex te n t he has any, ar e i rr el evant
. B ec au s e th es e a re d ive rs ity ca se s, Ju d ge A d elm an is o bl i g at ed to f o l l o w sta te l aw, a s i nt er pr et ed bythe st at e su p r e m e c ou rt
. StateFarm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co
. v. Pa te, 275 F
. 3d 66 6, 6 69 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( ci tingEr i eR.R
. v. Tom pki ns , 3 04 U. S
. 6 4, 8 0 ( 19 38 ) )
. He c anno t r ev i sit the ho l ding i n Thom as , notev en i fhe were per suaded that Sh e r w i n - W i l l i a m s ’ s o b je c t ion s a re m er ito riou s. See R enne rtv. Great D ane Ltd. P’ship , 54 3 F. 3d 914, 91 7 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ). A rea so n ab le p er so n w ou ld u n d er st an d th is and w oul d app re ci ate t hat J ud ge A del m an’ s i m parti al i ty i n these case s i s i n no w ay cal l ed i nto question by anyth ing he m ay ha ve said abou t the m erits of Thom as . Sh e r wi n- W i l l i a ms a l s o a r gue s tha t the mer e f a c tthat J u d g e A d e l ma n p u b l i s h e d a n a r t i c l e th a td e fe n d s , i n s o me f a sh i o n, a r ul i ngtha twa s f a v o r ab l e t o c e r t a i n l e a dpai nt pl ai nti ff s would m ake a re aso nabl e per son su sp ec t t h at Ju d ge A d elm an h as an u n u su al in te re st in a s s is ting su ch plaintiff s

— i
. e . , th a th e h a s a n a x t o g r i nd

. Bu t s om eone w ho was aware ofthe contr ove rs y regard ing th e l im its ofthe W iscons in Sup rem e C ou rt’s pow erand knew that federa lj ud ges m ay sp ea k, wri te, and parti ci pate in other acti vi ti es concerni ng the l ega l iss u es of th e d ay , see C od e of Cond uct f orU ni ted S tat es J udg es , Ca no n 4 A(1 ) , woul d find nothi nguns ee m l y abo ut J udg e Ad el m anpub l i sh i nga l aw r ev i ew arti cl e o n the to p ic. Sh er w in -W illiam s s u gg es ts t h at th is s c en ar io is anal ogo us to cas es i n w hi ch r ecusalh as bee n or dered because o fa dist ri ct j ud ge’ s co m m ents to the m edi a o r8 N o. 10

- 1639 atc o nf er en ce s, b ut in each of t ho se de ci si o ns th e com m ented- up on- case was pend i ng be f or e the di str ict j u d ge . E. g . , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Mi c r o s o f tC o rp. , 25 3 F
. 3d 34, 107-15 (D.C. Cir. 2001); In re B o ston ’s C h i l d ren First, 244 F.3d 164 (1st C ir. 2001); Hat hc ock v. Nav i s t arInt’l Tra n s . C o rp. , 5 3 F .3d 36 , 41 (4 th C ir. 19 95 ); U nited Sta tes v. C o o ley, 1 F. 3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993). C an on 3(A )( 6) generally di sco urag es pu bl i c co m m ents about the m er i ts of pend i ng ca ses , and such co m m ents m ay und er sta nd ab ly ra i se questi ons about a j ud ge’s im parti al i ty i n the case o ve r w h i c h h e o r s h e i s p r e s i d i n g . B u tth o s e c o n c e r ns ar e n ot i m pli cate d here bec ause Thom as i s no t be f ore J udg e Ad el m ana nd ne ve r ha s be en . Sher w in -W i l l i am s has notes tabl i shed that J ud ge A d e l m a n ’s a rt icle w ou ld m ak e a rea so n ab le, th ou gh tfu l, and w el l

- i nfo rm ed obs er verquesti on hi s i m parti al i ty. A ccor dingl y, the peti ti on f or w ri t of m andam us i s D ENI ED .

6- 7- 10