KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (Legal Newsline) - A Tennessee judge who ordered harsh sanctions against an opioid manufacturer and later boasted about it on Facebook should have recused himself for the appearance of bias, an appeals court ruled, reversing the sanctions and ordering the judge off the case.
Endo Pharmaceuticals moved to disqualify Cumberland County Judge Jonathan Young after a February 10 hearing in which he told the company he would hold it in contempt for failing to turn over evidence and said Endo’s former counsel “might be going to jail with or without their toothbrush” if they had showed up at the hearing. Judge Young was presiding over a lawsuit by Clay County against Endo and other opioid companies.
In an interview a few days later, Judge Young told a reporter for Law 360 that Endo was guilty of “the worst case of document hiding that I’ve ever seen. It was like a plot out of a John Grisham movie, except that it was even worse than what he could dream up.”
The judge also criticized local media for failing to report on his ruling against Endo on his personal Facebook page, which included a “re-elect” banner. A commenter said “you’re not trying to ban drunken bridesmaids on peddle carts,” to which the judge replied “nope. Opioids.”
After the interview and Facebook comments, Endo requested the judge to recuse himself. He refused, so the company sought relief from the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville. When it received the petition, the Court of Appeals entered a stay on the trial proceedings and ordered the parties to file answers to Endo’s complaint.
In an April 20 opinion by Judge Arnold Goldin, the court agreed with Endo that the judge had crossed the line by commenting on the case before him.
“This activity by the trial judge positions himself publicly as an interested community advocate and voice for change in the larger societal controversy over opioids, not an impartial adjudicator presiding over litigation,” the court ruled. The judge’s Facebook posts “can reasonably be construed to suggest that the trial judge has a specific agenda that is antagonistic to the interests of those in the pharmaceutical industry.”