Opinion ID: 78403
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Threats to Spradley

Text: In another example of Mr. Shuker threaten[ing] to use what he apparently thought was his court-granted right to threaten imprisonment, the Motion references an incident at Knight's deposition. (Recusal Mot. at 9.) Shuker was allegedly enraged when he saw Spradley at the deposition. Shuker told Spradley to leave the room and threatened that he would be arrested for trespass if he did not leave. Spradley did not leave. Shuker then left the room, calmed down, and returned a few minutes later. The deposition was taken with Spradley present. Again, the Motion fails to put the incident in context. Shuker testified that the Knight deposition at issue was not for the general Mataeka proceeding, but for the private purpose of accessing Knight's funds in aid of execution of an existing judgment. Shuker did not believe that Spradley had a right to be at the deposition. Further, Huggins was to be deposed immediately after Knight. Thus, Shuker did not want Huggins' counsel in the room for Knight's deposition. He did not want Huggins to know what Knight was being questioned about or testifying to. Shuker himself acknowledged that his behavior was improper. Spradley emailed Shuker the next day outlining the inappropriate comment and Shuker responded with an apology email. The language used in the Recusal Motion fails to tell the whole story and thereby exaggerates what occurred.