Bias Analysis of September 28, 2021 Order
AI Judicial Bias Indicator
September 28, 2021 Deposition Delay Order
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Defendants
Favoring
Plaintiffs
Favoring
Plaintiffs
Favoring
Plaintiffs
Favoring
Plaintiffs
Favoring
Plaintiffs
Favoring
Plaintiffs
Favoring
Plaintiffs
Favoring
Plaintiffs
Favoring
Plaintiffs
ChatGPT (AI) Analysis
Analysis of Judge Miller’s September 28, 2021 Order and the Related September 24, 2021 Hearing Transcript (Motion to Compel & Deposition Delay)
Issue: Plaintiffs’ Request to Delay Depositions Pending Discovery Compliance
Plaintiffs’ Position:
-
Plaintiffs sought to delay Defendants’ depositions until after Defendants complied with discovery obligations.
-
They argued:
-
Defendants had a pattern of withholding documents, then using those undisclosed materials during depositions.
-
This conduct prejudiced Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare and respond adequately, especially for third-party deponents like [Plaintiffs’ daughters].
-
A specific incident was raised where an undisclosed email was used during a deposition and was not even provided to the court reporter initially.
-
Plaintiffs emphasized that discovery is meant to be reciprocal and fair—not a tool for “trial by ambush.”
-
Defendants’ Response:
-
Defendants argued:
-
There was no legal basis to preclude depositions due to discovery disputes.
-
Plaintiffs were engaging in “conspiracy theories” without proving any concrete deficiency in specific discovery responses.
-
Defendants stated they provided all documents in their possession and were under no obligation to produce records they did not have or remember.
-
They opposed delaying [Plaintiffs’ daughters’] depositions, emphasizing they were central to Defendants’ case and that their depositions had already been delayed.
-
Judge Miller’s Ruling:
-
Plaintiffs’ motion to delay depositions was denied.
-
Judge Miller stated:
-
Plaintiffs did not cite case law supporting preclusion of depositions as a remedy for discovery disputes.
-
The typical remedy is an order compelling production, not delaying depositions.
-
The court would not condition the scheduling of depositions on complete satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ discovery demands.
-
Evaluation of Judicial Neutrality (Scale from -10 to +10):
| Factor | Observation | Bias Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Consideration of documented issues with withheld discovery | Judge did not substantively engage with Plaintiffs’ detailed account of discovery abuse (e.g., ambush with undisclosed email) | -2 |
| Responsiveness to fairness concerns in third-party depositions | Ignored potential prejudice to Plaintiffs from surprise documents during depositions | -2 |
| Application of procedural norms | Applied a narrow, formalistic reading of discovery remedies (i.e., no delay without explicit precedent) | 0 (neutral on technicality) |
| Weight given to Defendants’ argument of “conspiracy theories” | Accepted without scrutiny Defendants’ dismissive framing of Plaintiffs’ forensic call records and detailed memos | -2 |
| Willingness to entertain compromise or alternative remedy (e.g., interim protective order) | Did not explore or suggest phased discovery or court-reviewed privilege logs as alternatives | -1 |
Bias Score: -7
Conclusion: Judge Miller’s decision displayed a significant lean in favor of Defendants. While it is technically accurate that precluding depositions is not a standard remedy for discovery noncompliance, the context—documented withholding, use of undisclosed exhibits during depositions, and lack of case-specific document production by Lisa Stevenson—warranted more judicial scrutiny. His refusal to entertain even limited delay or conditional protections suggests a lack of balanced discretion and a predisposition to discount Plaintiffs’ concerns. This weighs in at a -7 on the bias scale.