Opinion ID: 78403
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliance on 46-page Filing

Text: We also find no evidence that Judge Briskman read, let alone relied on, Evergreen's 46-page FOFCOL and Ginsberg has presented none. Due to the overlap between the court's ultimate FOFCOL and Evergreen's 46-page FOFCOL, Spradley and Ginsberg contended that Judge Briskman relied on the 46-page document. ( See Recusal Tr. Vol. IV at 97; Sanctions Tr. Vol. I at 100.) Spradley and Ginsberg also felt it significant that the court never disclosed the 46-page submission or formally rejected the oversized filing. Yet, neither Spradley nor Ginsberg had any reason to believe Judge Briskman or his law clerk actually read the 46-page FOFCOL. ( See, e.g., Recusal Tr. Vol. III at 67, 153; Sanctions Tr. Vol. I at 101.) The only evidence produced was the emails discussed above, which suggest that Judge Briskman did not read the 46-page FOFCOL and that it was a moot issue. Further, at the time the Motion was filed, neither Ginsberg nor Spradley had seen the 15-page replacement FOFCOL or the FOFCOL submitted at the conclusion of the trial. (Recusal Tr. Vol. III at 97.) At the recusal hearing Shuker testified that all of the facts and conclusions contained in the 46-page submission could be found in Evergreen's two 15-page submissions or in the FOFCOL in the Kime opinion, a related case cited in Evergreen's 15-page submission. Spradley and Ginsberg conceded that they had never reviewed either of Evergreen's 15-page submissions or compared those documents with the court's ultimate FOFCOL. Ginsberg says he assumed that Judge Briskman read the oversized FOFCOL. This is another unjustified position in the face of emails to the contrary. Moreover, Shuker's expert witness Professor Lubet explained that even if the emails are incorrect and Judge Briskman actually read the 46-page submission, he could have easily disregarded it. Indeed, judges are asked to disregard evidence all of the time. Finally, we note that although Ginsberg and Spradley were quick to accuse Shuker of filing an oversized FOFCOL (Mr. Shuker took advantage of the clandestine filings by blatantly flaunting the page limits imposed on Movants (emphasis added)), their own FOFCOL was oversized and in violation of the Local Rules. (Recusal Mot. at 27.) Once again, the record supports the bankruptcy court's findings.