## Facts

- Diane Serafin Blank, a female attorney, applied for an associate position at Sullivan & Cromwell and was rejected.
- Blank sued the firm under Title VII, alleging sex discrimination in hiring, and brought the action individually and on behalf of similarly situated applicants.
- The court certified the matter as a class action.
- After class certification and other rulings, Sullivan & Cromwell moved to disqualify the presiding judge under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, asserting personal bias.
- During discovery, Blank served interrogatories seeking firm-wide statistical and comparative information about the gender composition of associates and partners and partnership offers.
- A magistrate judge denied a motion to compel; the district court initially agreed, then reconsidered the denial.

## Issues

1. Whether the presiding judge was required to recuse under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 based on alleged bias inferred from judicial rulings in the case.
2. Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, a Title VII plaintiff could obtain firm-wide gender composition and promotion/partnership data as discovery relevant to claims of discriminatory hiring and related practices.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to disqualify under §§ 144 and 455 because the supporting affidavits were legally insufficient to show personal, extrajudicial bias.
- On reconsideration of the discovery ruling, the court held the challenged interrogatories were within Rule 26’s scope and ordered Sullivan & Cromwell to respond.
- The court concluded that statistical and comparative firm-wide information could reasonably lead to admissible evidence bearing on discriminatory intent and patterns.

## Legal Principles

- Disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 144 requires a legally sufficient showing of personal prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source; dissatisfaction with case rulings does not establish bias.
- Section 455 similarly does not require recusal based solely on adverse rulings; a judge has a duty not to recuse absent an adequate legal basis.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to the subject matter and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence; discoverability is broader than trial admissibility.
- In Title VII litigation, employer-wide statistical and comparative evidence (e.g., gender ratios, promotion and partnership outcomes) may be relevant to proving or disproving discriminatory practices, even when the named plaintiff challenges an individual hiring decision.

## Conclusion

The court rejected recusal because the allegations relied on judicial rulings rather than extrajudicial bias, and it applied Rule 26’s broad relevance standard to compel production of firm-wide gender and promotion data as potentially probative evidence in a Title VII sex-discrimination class action.


Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 418 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)