ROBERT C. MITCHELL, Magistrate Judge.
On February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff, Donna Hill, filed a motion for recusal (ECF No. 82). This is the third such motion Plaintiff has filed in this case. See ECF No. 14 (arguing that the undersigned should recuse because, upon initial screening, a recommendation was made that the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted); ECF No. 56 (arguing that the undersigned should recuse because of alleged "zealous investigation into the history of this case's state court proceedings.")
The United States Code provides that:
28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The Supreme Court has held that "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion."
Plaintiff does not cite to extrajudicial sources, nor does she point to instances of opinions revealing a deep-seated or high-degree of favoritism or antagonism. Plaintiff's latest motion is based on her contention that the undersigned "coached" the Defendants to assert a defense of privilege in response to her discovery requests by ordering that they provide her with "all relevant, non-privileged information," after which they asserted privilege for the first time.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Thus, this Court did not "coach" Defendants to claim privilege; rather privileged matter is always outside the scope of discovery by definition. Although Plaintiff may disagree with this Court's order, such disagreement does not provide a basis for recusal. Therefore, her motion for recusal will be denied.
The Local Rules of this Court provide that "each motion and each brief shall be a separate document." LCvR 5.1(F). In contravention of this Rule, Plaintiff continually submits documents entitled "Brief in Support of X" without submitting the underlying motion in a separate document. The Clerk's Office is then required to construe her "brief" as the "motion" and docket the item twice to bring it into conformity with the Rule. Even though she is proceeding pro se, Plaintiff is still required to follow the Rules of this Court.
AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2017,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for recusal (ECF No. 82) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any future motions the Plaintiff intends to file, she shall submit a separate motion and brief as required by Local Rule 5.1(F).