Opinion ID: 3066148
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The “Ex Parte” Communications

Text: While ex parte communications are discouraged, see, e.g., United States v. Van Griffin, 874 F.2d 634, 637 (9th Cir. 1989), they aren’t always improper and don’t necessarily call for recusal. See Willenbring v. United States, 306 F.2d 944, 946 (9th Cir. 1962); see also Reed v. Rhodes, 179 F.3d 453, 468–69 (6th Cir. 1999). Ex parte motions may be brought in emergencies, to preserve state secrets and in a variety of other contexts. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically recognize the legitimacy of ex parte contacts in certain circumstances. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(c). Ex parte contacts are improper where, given all the circumstances, they could cause a reasonable person to question that judge’s impartiality. See Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1043; United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 214–15 (3d Cir. 2007). We start with the incident that Blixseth claims most clearly demonstrates the judge’s partiality: that the judge met with representatives of the debtor and bankruptcy bidders in Blixseth’s absence. The meeting concerned an upcoming non-public auction of the debtor’s assets. In a non-public bankruptcy auction, the debtor’s assets are auctioned off to qualified bidders—parties who commit to making a certain minimum bid and provide collateral as a guarantee of that commitment. This is a procedure widely employed by BLIXSETH V. YELLOWSTONE MOUNTAIN CLUB 7 bankruptcy courts to maximize the value of estates. See, e.g., Peterson v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 918 F. Supp. 2d 89, 98 (D. Mass. 2013); In re Trident Water Works, Inc., No. 0949166, 2010 WL 5167286, at  (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Aug. 27, 2010); In re Farmland Indus., Inc., 376 B.R. 718, 730 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2007). The debtor, Yellowstone, and the unsecured creditors were attempting to identify qualified bidders so they could conduct an auction. They invited the judge to one informal meeting in the hope that he could help them resolve differences about the proposed auction. Blixseth wasn’t the debtor or an unsecured creditor and he never attempted to qualify as a bidder. The upcoming auction therefore did not affect his interests and he had no right to participate. An ex parte contact with a judicial officer is one where a party who has a right to be present is excluded. Because Blixseth had no right to be present, the meeting between the judge, the debtor, the unsecured creditors and potential qualified bidders wasn’t ex parte as to him. See In re Goodwin, 194 B.R. 214, 222 (9th Cir. BAP 1996). Blixseth argues that any meeting between the judge and the parties was improper because the judge hadn’t yet ruled on Blixseth’s liability. He suggests that, during the meeting, the judge and the parties must have discussed Blixseth’s claim. But Blixseth provides no evidence that anything other than the upcoming auction was discussed at the meeting. A judge need not remove himself from all legitimate activity in administering a complex estate simply because he has motions pending. Blixseth presents nothing that would have required the judge to recuse himself. 8 BLIXSETH V. YELLOWSTONE MOUNTAIN CLUB Blixseth makes a variety of other claims about supposedly improper ex parte contacts. He points to an email from a senior bankruptcy judge to Yellowstone’s counsel providing two case citations. But the senior judge didn’t preside over the Yellowstone bankruptcy,2 and Blixseth doesn’t explain how the email shows bias on the part of the bankruptcy judge whose recusal he seeks. Equally meritless is Blixseth’s assertion that four emails sent by one of the bankruptcy judge’s law clerks show improper bias. The emails discussed such innocuous details as the date for the filing of the bankruptcy petition, what paperwork was required before a cash collateral motion could be approved and the judge’s intention to enter a generic order unless counsel wished to submit a proposed order. Ex parte communications with judicial staff concerning routine administrative matters do not raise any inference of bias. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 305 (3rd Cir. 2004). Blixseth’s overwrought argument that these emails prove some sort of conspiracy against him is wholly unfounded. Nor are we persuaded that a phone call between a law clerk assisting a different judge and the bankruptcy trustee in a related proceeding demonstrates that the bankruptcy judge is biased. Blixseth claims to have heard from a third party that, during the call, the clerk encouraged the trustee to 2 At oral argument, Yellowstone’s counsel suggested that the senior judge’s email was related to a mediation that occurred in 2009. Blixseth’s counsel, Michael Flynn, responded that it was a “complete fabrication” to suggest that in 2009 the senior judge “was involved in a mediation in this case.” Flynn’s statements to this court are demonstrably inaccurate: The record shows that the senior judge acted as a mediator in this case in 2009. Counsel could have verified his assertion following oral argument, but he has not retracted his erroneous statement. BLIXSETH V. YELLOWSTONE MOUNTAIN CLUB 9 complete a settlement before Blixseth could back out. Even if this rumor were true, encouraging parties to finalize a settlement before one of them has a change of heart is not improper.