Free Bill of Costs - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 173-3 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
I
·t 1 1 r N HOT
. ' · 1 Sir __ ,_ 1 _ O§5~C*J1/-·ClQ6. p
`L `C "¤*° `‘I` %·1t=- .1 `i`
‘*/- el · . e .
osom ‘ p ”
1 . Wood v. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. .
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS n
; FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT . · I
. SUMMARY ORDER ` r 1 C
Rulings by sumtnary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to summary ` _
· orders filed after january 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by this court’s Loca} Rule _ `
. 0.23 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1. In a brief or other paper in which a `
litigant cites a summary order, in each paragraph in which a citation appears, at least one I 1 .
citation must either be to the Federal Appendix or be accompanied by the notation: y
"(sumrnary orde1·).” Uniess the summary order is available in an electronic database which
2 · is publicly accessible without payment of fee [such as the database available. at
http://www.ca2.uscou1·ts.gov/), the party citing the summary order must file and serve a I
copy of that summary order together with the paper in which the summary order is cited.
If no copy is served by reason of the availability ofthe order on such a database, the citation · _
must include reference to that database and the docket number-of the case in which the _
order was entered. · I C p l S
At a stated terni of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held _
` at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
_ New York, on the Sth day of ]une,_ Two thousand seven. C _ _ l
_ PRESENT: l l C. _ I U C C s C
l ]o1é1NM. WALKER 3a. l C whlis CQURTOF I I ·
jose A. Caslumas p @5*% F WED 4’°·{<>€7
Circuitfudges, h .§· lx JUN U 5 ga
_ · R1o1~maoW.GoLosEao , _;é_”¤¤t,,.,, Attit iil I
1 _ fudge. _ . C COND GlFlC·\)\
•»¤»-¤¤·•·•;»»».-vt-I»-•»•·•-·•--¤···»—-•..,••¤—»••»•»..,.,..-,..,--.X ` I I
Susan E. Woot:. 1
- e R _ Plainig§€Appellant, l 1 . _
in 1 yl The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting e
by designation. - _ =
c C I 1 I I
gg H
- __ Issued as Mandate: JUN 2 6 2007 ___

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 173-3 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
-
. K" IU V
_ .V_s C ( i No. 06-0374-cv
Summa ENERGY TRADING Cone., - (
D&2zdamt-Appellee. .
,,,__.,...... . . - . ....... c »..... ( .·..-..-··-- -x ( U ‘
FOR APPELLANT: C i MARIANNE F. MURRAY, (Brendan j. O’Rourke, on the `_ I
brief), O’Rourke St Associates, LLC, New Canaan, CT
` FOR APPELLEE: ` KELLY Koeucea (Mary CZ. Dellarhide, San Diego, CA,
and Raymond W. Bertrand, Stamford, CT, on the brief),
Paul, Hastings, Qjanofsky SC `Walker LLP, Atlanta, GA _
Appeal from a judgment ofthe United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut (janet C. Hall, fndge).
C UPON CONSIDERATION whereof, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECRIEED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. i
Plaintiff—Appellant Susan Wood (“plaintifi"’) appeals a judgment ofthe District Court
‘ ° entered in favor of defendant after a bench trial. Plaintiff commenced the instant action in ‘ I
1 Connecticut Superior Court in May 2003 asserting claims of discrimination against the defendant
` employer; the action was removed to federal District Court in june 2003. On appeal, plaintiff . (
argues that the District judge improperly considered an "ex parte submission" offered by
defendant which, according to defendant, consisted of privileged documents showing compliance 1
with plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff seeks (1) vacatur ofthe District Court’s judgment on
the ground that consideration of such documents casts doubt on the Court’s impartiality and _
denied plaintiff a fair trial, and (2) remand for a new trial before a different judge. _ _
We reject plaintiff s argument that the District Court’s improperly considered “ex pm·re” -
evidence. First, in denying the motion which gave rise to deferidanfs submission of the _
( 1 documents in question-·—i.e., plai1:1itfi’s motion in limine seeking to compel defndanfs compliance
I with various discovery requests-the District judge explicitly stated that she did not rely on the
documents. Because we find no evidence in the record suggesting that this statement was
inaccurate, we conclude that plaintiff' s claim that she was prejudiced by the Court’s reliance on
these documents is without merit. Cf Westwood Chem., Inc. er. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Cmp.,
445 Fi2d 911, 918 (6th Cir. 1971) ("[I]n a trial to the court, it is presumed that evidence which is c
improper will be disregarded by the court.”).
[ _ Second, the District Court’s consideration of the documents_(absent reliance on them) did
not cast doubt on the 1Court’s impartiality. Although plaintiff characterizes the relevant _ I
. 2 i - i

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 173-3 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
documents as improper "ex parte” submissions, they were, in reality, merely documents submitted
in camera, which courts may properly exercise their discretion to review. See United States og C
— Zolia, 491 U.S. 554 (1989) (holding that in camera review is Permitted to assess the applicability of ‘
p ‘ the crirnetraud exception to attorney-client privilege); see also In re Grandjury Salgpeenas, 31`8
i F.3d 379, 386 (2d Cir. 2003} (rioting that in camera review “is a practice both longstanding and
routine in cases involving claims of privilege")‘ (collecting cases). Plaintiff received adequate notice
` of defendanfs request for in camera review and twice objected to the request in written
p c submissions to the District Court. Any claim that plaintiff was prejudiced by the District Court’s ·
consideration of such documents is undermined by the fact that the reason the District Court
granted defendanfs request to consider the documents was to assess defendanfs compliance with
discovery obligations, rather than to aid its consideration of the merits ofthe parties’ claims.
p Accordingly, we conclude that the record is devoid of error. There is no suggestion of
i impropriety by judge Hall in this record, or anything remoteiy resembling an appearance of
_ irnpropriety. The judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFERMED.
- ` ‘ p FOR THE COUIKT, _ _
C ` i . Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court · l ,
‘ 1 . , YQ X _,2e;‘f v -.
p GQCO @5 1 ~
an i atl -°
c b .g,a*e» ,/
· ‘ T ` , . O · ,$ ‘ ' gies ‘
rs ., 4
_ __ t C. -._-.