Something Something Venezuela

Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has denied OANN’s motion to recuse her in the case brought by Smartmatic.

The matter was referred by the District Court to resolve discovery disputes.

The alleged conflict was grounded in her prior involvement in a case while an attorney at Venable

When examined closely, OANN’s argument for recusal boils down to an argument that I should recuse because both cases have something to do with Venezuela and Maduro. It is insufficient, however, for OANN to simply assert that I must recuse because my prior representation asserted a position on behalf of Venezuela and some of the statements in this case also relate to Venezuela.

Despite OANN’s attempt to create a meaningful overlap between the two cases, that connection does not exist. During the time I was involved in Rusoro Mining, one legal issue was raised: which firm—Venable or Arnold & Porter—spoke on behalf of the government following the 2018 Venezuelan election given both Maduro and Guaido’s claims of victory? The legal issue had nothing to do with Smartmatic, OANN, OANN’s allegedly defamatory statements, or the 2020 U.S. election. The crux of this case is Smartmatic’s challenge to statements OANN made regarding Smartmatic’s alleged involvement in the 2020 U.S. election. Significantly, the actual outcome of the 20186 Venezuelan election is not a disputed issue at trial. I will not be asked to rule upon the outcome of or any disputed issues relating to the 2018 Venezuelan election, and neither party has claimed as much. Neither the Maduro government nor any other entity acting on behalf of the government of Venezuela is a party to this suit, and no party has alleged that he or anyone acting on his behalf would be a witness in this case. The question at issue during the time I was involved in the Rusoro Mining appeal is not a legal issue in this case, and this case is not a proxy dispute over the legitimacy of the Venezuelan government. It is also noteworthy that, in all of the pleadings and discovery requests OANN cites, there is no specific mention of the 2018 Venezuelan election.

Also

Finally, OANN makes a half-hearted argument for recusal because one of my former law partners represented companies which allegedly were a “high-level” contributor to Maduro. As OANN correctly points out, I was not involved in any of these cases. OANN also concedes that this basis alone would not warrant my recusal. See ECF No. 91 at 12:14 (“But that’s surely not the central focus of our argument here.”), 36:13–17 (“And as I’ve said before, if it was only about your partner’s representation, we wouldn’t be here…”). 

Section 455(a) does not warrant recusal here. This client of my former law firm partner is not a party to this case. Nor is he alleged to have an interest in the outcome of this case. There is no overlap in any way between the two cases. This alleged connection does not come close to what is required under § 455(a). See Philip Morris USA Inc., 156 Supp. 3d at 51 (finding § 455(a) did not mandate recusal when a judge’s former law firm represented an anti-tobacco campaign and the plaintiffs before the court were tobacco companies).

(Mike Frisch)