CAFC Judges Ask DC Court to Create Means to Settle Spat With Judge Newman on Confidentiality Deal
Three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges -- Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto -- moved for assistance from the District Court for the District of Columbia in settling a dispute between the trio and their colleague, Judge Pauline Newman, over a mediation confidentiality agreement. While the motion, brought as part of Newman's case against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving as a judge, was silent on the nature of the dispute, the judges discussed ways the court could settle it (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
In Newman's case, the D.C. court referred the matter for mediation before Judge Thomas Griffith, though the process did not yield a productive result (see 2307110045). Prior to engaging in mediation, the parties signed a confidentiality agreement, which "includes nondisclosure provision similar to those in the local mediation rules," Moore, Prost and Taranto said.
Noting that mediation litigants should not bring compliance issues to the judge who is assigned the case, the trio merely requested that the court establish a process to settle the issue. Avenues for relief include referral to a "mediation Compliance Judge" or another judge of the court or a "Special Master." The judges said they are "prepared to proceed expeditiously through any of these processes or any other procedures this Court deems appropriate."
The case stems from the fitness investigation launched in March on Newman's ability to effectively do her job due to the 96-year-old's physical and mental well-being. After narrowing the proceeding to Newman's hindrance of the investigation, the three judges recommended barring Newman from receiving new cases for a year. This recommendation was enacted by the court's Judicial Council (see 2309200024).