Anti-Abortion Activist Loses Bid to Boot Judge From Video Case
Lawyers representing David Daleiden have lost out on their attempt to disqualify U.S. District Judge William Orrick III from handling a case where he has barred the release of hidden-camera videos recorded at two National Abortion Federation annual conferences.
June 26, 2017 at 03:42 PM
8 minute read
SAN FRANCISCO — Lawyers representing an anti-abortion activist have lost their attempt to disqualify U.S. District Judge William Orrick III from handling a case where he barred the release of hidden-camera videos recorded at two National Abortion Federation annual conferences.
Lawyers for David Daleiden had asked earlier this month that Orrick be disqualified from handling the case. They cited Orrick's time as a board member at a nonprofit health center that for a time housed a Planned Parenthood affiliate, and posts by the judge's wife on social media that were supportive of abortion rights groups. Daleiden's lawyers also claimed Orrick made comments that indicated he was prejudiced against Daleiden during a telephone hearing in May. But on Monday, Orrick's Northern District colleague, Judge James Donato, found that his Orrick need not step aside.
Donato, who was assigned to handle the disqualification motion by the Northern District of California's clerk's office after Orrick referred it out, took particular aim at claims tied to Orrick's wife. According to court filings, Orrick's wife included a pink “I stand with Planned Parenthood” overlay to her Facebook page some time in 2015 and on two other occasions liked posts that were critical of Daleiden while her profile included a photo of her together with the judge. Donato wrote that the posts weren't a reason to disqualify Orrick and that Daleiden's argument rested on “the faulty and anachronistic assumption that a wife's communicative activity necessarily represents the views of, or should be attributed to, her husband.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readFederal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
2 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Data Breach Lawsuit Against Byte Federal Among 1,500 Targeting Companies in 2024
- 2Counterfeiters Ride Surge in Tabletop Games’ Popularity, Challenging IP Owners to Keep Up
- 3Health Care Data Breach Class Actions Saw December Surge in NY Courts
- 4Florida Supreme Court Disbars 3, Suspends 11, Reprimands 1 in Final Disciplinary Order of 2024
- 5Chief Justice Roberts Ends Year With Defense Against 'Illegitimate' Attacks on Judiciary
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250