Williams v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al, No. 2:2017cv04291 - Document 56 (E.D. La. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: denying 54 Motion to Disqualify, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 03/30/2023. (am)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al Doc. 56 Case 2:17-cv-04291-BWA-JVM Document 56 Filed 03/30/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAWARREN ZYKEITH WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-4291 BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., et al. SECTION M (1) ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion by plaintiff Dawarren Zykeith Williams to disqualify the undersigned from these proceedings.1 Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. respond in opposition.2 The same motion has been filed and fully briefed in many other B3 cases allotted to this section of court. Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies the motion for the reasons articulated at length in the Order & Reasons issued in Carpenter v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., 2022 WL 2800014 (E.D. La. July 14, 2022), because there is no actual conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety, and the motion was untimely filed. A judge has an affirmative duty not to disqualify himself or herself unnecessarily, and because Williams raises no compelling or persuasive grounds for disqualification here, it is unnecessary and, indeed, would be improper for the undersigned to do so. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Williams’s motion to disqualify (R. Doc. 54) is DENIED. 1 2 R. Doc. 54. R. Doc. 55. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:17-cv-04291-BWA-JVM Document 56 Filed 03/30/23 Page 2 of 2 New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of March, 2023. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
