Opinion ID: 186703
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Suppression of the Special Master's Reports

Text: 23 The plaintiffs maintain that even if Balaran was disqualified pursuant to § 455(a) prior to his resignation — as we have now so held — suppression of his reports is unnecessary. To this end they say  none of the three reports targeted by [Interior] has even been adopted by the District Court — much less acted upon to the [Department's] detriment. The plaintiffs also argue Interior could have moved to exclude Balaran's reports and findings pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 53(g) (party may file objections to master's report) and 26(c) (party may move for protective order preventing disclosure of specific documents or information). A writ of mandamus, the plaintiffs contend, being an extraordinary remedy, is simply not required in order to afford the Department the relief it seeks. 24 Interior responds that a party confronted with adverse reports from a biased judicial officer is not required to litigate the merits of each of their findings and conclusions, but may properly obtain vacatur of the reports if grounds for disqualification are established. The Department also maintains Rules 53 and 26 are of little use now because the district court has already rejected its argument that Balaran should have been disqualified. 25 We believe suppression of Balaran's reports is warranted and indeed necessary. As we noted In re Brooks, selection bias does not necessarily manifest itself in the record; it may derive from information that leave[s] no trace in the record. 383 F.3d at 1046 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in the original). Balaran's reliance upon Smith in choosing which documents to consider and, by implication, which documents not to consider, would lead one fully apprised of the surrounding circumstances, Cobell, 334 F.3d at 1143, to conclude Balaran's interim report was likely affected by selection bias; Smith obviously was not a disinterested source, and his input was received ex parte and therefore untested by the adversary process. 26 Because Balaran was disqualified from proceeding once he hired Smith, his subsequent work product — including the April 2003 interim report of investigation and the two site-visit reports that followed — must be suppressed. If those reports have not been used against the Department and are not presently part of the record before the district court, then so much the better; only suppression can ensure neither the plaintiffs nor the district court will rely upon the reports in the future, to the detriment of the public's confidence in the judicial process. Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988).