Panasonic is planning to take its effort to get a judge pulled off a discrimination case to New Jersey's highest court.The judge, Christine Farrington, of Essex County Superior Court, refused to disqualify herself from Cruz v. Panasonic in the face of Panasonic's contention that she is biased against the company or that, at the very least, a reasonably informed person would have doubts about her impartiality.The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal April 7.Michael Griffinger of Gibbons in Newark, who represents the defendant, Panasonic Corp. of North America, said he expects to file within the next week or so a motion for leave to appeal with the New Jersey Supreme Court.Panasonic is seeking to have Farrington removed based on what it claims is a “pattern of partiality,” which allegedly includes her imposition of a $94,000-plus sanction on the Chatham firm of Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, which also represents Panasonic, for violating ethics rules, according to court documents.In addition, Panasonic alleged in court papers, Farrington prejudged motions in favor of the plaintiffs, made biased statements on the record and repeatedly ignored controlling legal precedent to rule in the plaintiffs' favor.Cruz is a race and sex discrimination case brought by two current employees, Sandra Karriem and Marilyn Joseph, and one former one, Glorina Williams Cruz. Karriem is an assistant general counsel for the consumer electronics company, whose U.S. operations are headquartered in Newark.According to court documents, the sanctions were imposed over Nukk-Freeman's handling of allegedly privileged materials that Cruz, who is African-American, emailed to a lawyer with whom she consulted after she was allegedly passed over for promotion to vice president of human resources and the position went to a white male she claims was less qualified.The emails were sent directly to the personal email address of lawyer Randy Davenport, of Piscataway, in September 2012 from Cruz's work email account, which she was accessing remotely because she was then out of the office on a temporary disability leave, according to court documents.The materials she sent Davenport, which she said she believed were relevant to her discrimination and retaliation claims, included executive compensation decisions, another employee's performance review, bonus payments to an executive and communications regarding promotions and reassignments of other Panasonic employees, according to court documents.Cruz claimed in court documents that within hours of sending the messages, she recalled them in an attempt to preserve the confidentiality of what she saw as communications protected by the attorney-client privilege.She subsequently retained Smith Mullin of Montclair to file suit.In February 2014, two of the emails were inadvertently produced during discovery and last July, one of them was used to question Panasonic CEO Joseph Taylor during his deposition, according to court documents.Smith Mullin claimed it became aware of the inadvertent disclosure shortly after, according to court documents.Panasonic began an in-house investigation a few days later and learned that Cruz had sent Davenport about 20 emails in total, which it reviewed with outside counsel at Nukk-Freeman, court documents said.At least seven of the emails “communicated [Cruz's] thoughts and conclusions regarding the significance of the documents relative to her potential claims,”Farrington said in an opinion based on an in camera review she conducted after the plaintiffs claimed the emails were privileged and sought Nukk-Freeman's disqualification on that basis.Two day after Panasonic's review of the emails, on Aug. 1, Smith Mullin notified Nukk-Freeman that the emails were privileged, claimed it was not previously aware of their existence and demanded they be turned over, according to court documents.Panasonic claimed it did not know Cruz had consulted a lawyer before Smith Mullin or that the emails were privileged, according to court documents. Panasonic's Aug. 4 response to Smith Mullin asked for the lawyer's name and the basis for the assertion of privilege, saying nothing in the messages or documents evidenced a relationship with an attorney.Smith Mullin replied Aug. 5, saying Cruz communicated with Davenport to obtain legal advice and no further explanation was needed for Panasonic to comply with the law and ethics rules.Nukk-Freeman did not hand over the emails but subpoenaed Davenport and tried to depose Cruz about her communications with him, according to court documents.Farrington denied the motion to disqualify Nukk-Freeman on Oct. 10 and found that Cruz did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the emails and waived any privilege by using company email, contrary to Panasonic policy regarding private use.Nevertheless, Farrington found that there was a colorable claim of privilege Aug. 1 and that because Davenport's name had come up months earlier as an attorney with an interest in Cruz, Nukk-Freeman should have realized the emails were attorney-client communications as soon as it learned it had them and notified Smith Mullin.Instead, it concealed its investigation, subpoenaed Davenport and failed to produce copies of the emails until just before oral argument on the motion, Farrington said.Farrington held that Nukk-Freeman breached Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(b), which says lawyers are supposed to stop reading documents that reasonably appear to have been sent by mistake and to return them.Farrington sanctioned Nukk-Freeman, requiring it to pay the plaintiffs about $94,000 in legal fees. Panasonic filed its recusal motion Dec. 14. Farrington denied it Feb. 6.Ruling from the bench, she said she “has no bias for or against either party or either party's attorneys” and that her rulings were based on her understanding of the law and rules of evidence.Panasonic then asked the Appellate Division for leave to appeal, arguing in court documents that Farrington's holding gave short shrift to its motion and failed to address its arguments, which were based on not just actual bias but how the totality of circumstances would appear to a reasonable observer.Panasonic also argued in court documents that Farrington's attack on Taylor's credibility and her statements criticizing the veracity and integrity of the company's counsel created an appearance of bias.Smith Mullin argued in opposition that just because a judge repeatedly rules against you doesn't mean the judge is biased and that comments judges make on the record disapproving of a party's or lawyer's position “never provide a basis for recusal unless such comments reflect deep-seated bias or antagonism toward a client,” according to court documents.Appeals Judges Carmen Alvarez and Harry Carroll denied leave.Griffinger referred a request for comment to the company and Nukk-Freeman's Kerrie Heslin did not return a call.Panasonic spokesman Jim Reilly said, “We are seeking an immediate, complete and thorough review from the Supreme Court. We are disappointed that the Appellate Division chose not to review the lower court's decision at this time.”Reilly said Panasonic denies that it discriminated against the plaintiffs and “will continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims that have been alleged.”Nancy Erika Smith of Smith Mullin said the case has involved more delay through “excessive litigation” than she has seen before in 35 years of practice.