{"cached_at":"2026-10-18T10:44:02.582886+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71232462","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","id":71232462,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/mied/","court_id":"mied","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10802633/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9311/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2025-08-29T12:42:31.201662-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:11.916608-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Michael C. Martin","referred_to_str":"Patricia T. Morris","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-08-29","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-09","case_name_short":"Lin","case_name":"Lin v. Dow Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"lin-v-dow-inc","docket_number":"1:25-cv-12744","docket_number_core":"2512744","docket_number_raw":"1:25-cv-12744","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"MCM","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"PTM","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"388145","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-08-29T12:42:31.178199-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16681258/","id":16681258,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10875329/","attorney_id":10875329,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-13T12:46:00.102957-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-13T12:46:00.102967-08:00","name":"Curtis Lin","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16681257/","id":16681257,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10745799/","attorney_id":10745799,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-13T12:45:59.995511-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-13T12:45:59.995529-08:00","name":"Oscar Bryan Denham","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16681256/","id":16681256,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10875328/","attorney_id":10875328,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-13T12:45:59.929732-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-13T12:45:59.929748-08:00","name":"NORTON PETROVICH","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16681255/","id":16681255,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10875327/","attorney_id":10875327,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2025-10-28","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 10/28/2025","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-13T12:45:59.483412-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-13T12:45:59.483423-08:00","name":"Merrick Moody","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16598932/","id":16598932,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10829369/","attorney_id":10829369,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-28T15:37:12.142046-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-28T15:37:12.142062-07:00","name":"Charles Johnson","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16189467/","id":16189467,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.604187-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.604195-07:00","name":"Karen S. Carter","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16189466/","id":16189466,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.589983-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.589991-07:00","name":"Jeffrey L. Tate","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16189465/","id":16189465,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.575436-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.575444-07:00","name":"Jim Fitterling","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16189464/","id":16189464,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.560141-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.560151-07:00","name":"The Dow Chemical Company","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16189463/","id":16189463,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.482608-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.482617-07:00","name":"Dow Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16189462/","id":16189462,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10875327/","attorney_id":10875327,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10660583/","attorney_id":10660583,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10745799/","attorney_id":10745799,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10660584/","attorney_id":10660584,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","docket_id":71232462,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.189221-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-29T21:14:31.189230-07:00","name":"Todd A. Sarti","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481606472/","id":481606472,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497357242/","id":497357242,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/38/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.273665-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.273693-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014949114","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.241466-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.249292-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-22.002","pacer_sequence_number":146,"description":"DECLARATION by Jonathan E. Lauderbach re 37 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws filed by All Defendants (Lauderbach, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/22/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481176873/","id":481176873,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496902223/","id":496902223,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/43/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-09T18:46:36.447896-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-09T18:46:36.463478-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097015152456","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-09T18:46:36.425976-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.384120-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-09","time_filed":"20:50:53","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":165,"description":"RESPONSE to 41 MOTION to Strike 37 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex - Declaration) (Lauderbach, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/480303040/","id":480303040,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/496003128/","id":496003128,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-02T09:21:32.947006-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T09:21:32.947018-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Text-Only Reassignment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-02T09:21:32.935798-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-02T09:21:32.935812-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-02","time_filed":"11:42:53","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479456478/","id":479456478,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/495107393/","id":495107393,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/42/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-25T12:02:49.447753-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-25T12:02:49.454831-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097015123985","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-25T12:02:49.417872-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.367891-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-25","time_filed":"14:16:23","entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":158,"description":"STIPULATED ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule re 41 MOTION to Strike; Response due by 10/9/2026, Reply due by 10/23/2026, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar) (Entered: 09/25/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477751721/","id":477751721,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493357226/","id":493357226,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/40/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-11T19:26:38.162180-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T19:26:38.171118-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097015097392","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T19:26:38.128048-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.334308-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-11","time_filed":"22:12:15","entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":152,"description":"RESPONSE to 37 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws filed by Curtis Lin. (Capeci, Michael) (Entered: 09/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477751720/","id":477751720,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493357225/","id":493357225,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/41/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-11T19:26:37.953047-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T19:26:37.968764-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097015097395","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Strike","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T19:26:37.908181-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.356263-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-11","time_filed":"22:17:23","entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-11.002","pacer_sequence_number":155,"description":"MOTION to Strike 37 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws by Curtis Lin. (Capeci, Michael) (Entered: 09/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469024165/","id":469024165,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484340127/","id":484340127,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/39/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-28T11:17:52.969987-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-28T11:17:52.981531-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014959749","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Determination of Motion Without Oral Argument*","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-28T11:17:52.937215-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.302812-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-28","time_filed":"13:17:18","entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":149,"description":"Notice of Determination of Motion Without Oral Argument re 37 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws; Response due by 9/11/2026, Reply due by 10/26/2026 (WBar) (Entered: 06/28/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468357143/","id":468357143,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483649102/","id":483649102,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/37/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-22T17:22:43.885914-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-22T17:22:43.899786-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014949108","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-22T17:22:43.848893-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.189705-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-22","time_filed":"19:26:43","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":144,"description":"MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws by All Defendants. (Lauderbach, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/22/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464567533/","id":464567533,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479745121/","id":479745121,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/36/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-19T12:23:57.053146-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-19T12:23:57.070046-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014887770","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-19T12:23:57.024563-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.166330-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-19","time_filed":"15:13:56","entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":142,"description":"STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Page Limit Extension and Amending Briefing Schedule. Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint is due on 6/22/2026; Lead Plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on 9/11/2026; and Defendants reply in further support of their motion to dismiss is due on 10/26/2026, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar) (Entered: 05/19/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462116657/","id":462116657,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477224244/","id":477224244,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/35/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-27T13:21:48.105590-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T13:21:48.112622-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014847818","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amending Case Caption AND Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-27T13:21:48.081188-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.121381-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-27","time_filed":"16:05:35","entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-27.002","pacer_sequence_number":133,"description":"AMENDED ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY 25 AND AMENDING THE CASE CAPTION - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (CCie) (Entered: 04/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462066380/","id":462066380,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477173026/","id":477173026,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/34/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-27T09:18:07.265111-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T13:21:54.699890-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014846582","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-27T09:18:07.241307-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.090186-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-27","time_filed":"12:09:54","entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":131,"description":"STIPULATED ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule; Defendants motion to dismiss the amended complaint is due on June 1, 2026; Lead Plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on July 31, 2026; and Defendants reply in further support of their motion to dismiss is due on September 14, 2026. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar) (Entered: 04/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461774503/","id":461774503,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476873922/","id":476873922,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/33/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-23T12:22:30.440064-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:49:55.489614-07:00","sha1":"a863e849a524aa2ae0c297887d3cb48ba15cbede","page_count":2,"file_size":85570,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.33.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.33.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 33, PageID.789 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n SOUTHERN DIVISION\n\n\nTodd A. Sarti, Individually and on\nBehalf of All Others Similarly\nSituated, Case No. 25-12744\n\n Plaintiff, Judith E. Levy\n United States District Judge\nv.\n Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris\nDow Inc., et al.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n________________________________/\n\n\n ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION TO STAY [25]\n\n On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff Todd A. Sarti filed a motion to stay\n\nthe action \u201cto allow for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth\n\nCircuit [ ] to resolve the pending mandamus petition in In re Sushma\n\nJones, No. 25-1486 [ ], which will determine whether the Honorable\n\nThomas L. Ludington should be recused from presiding over lawsuits . .\n\n. involving Dow Inc., The Dow Chemical Company . . . , or any Dow\n\naffiliate.\u201d (ECF No. 25, PageID.512.)\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 33, PageID.790 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n On April 22, 2026, the suit was reassigned to the Undersigned.\n\n(ECF No. 32.) Without expressing any view as to the merits of Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nmotion to stay, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s motion.\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 23, 2026 s/Judith E. Levy\nAnn Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY\n United States District Judge\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served\nupon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court\u2019s\nECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses\ndisclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 23, 2026.\n s/William Barkholz\n WILLIAM BARKHOLZ\n Case Manager\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:08.994242-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014842568","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Stay","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-23T12:22:30.411461-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.047653-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-23","time_filed":"14:45:41","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":129,"description":"ORDER denying without prejudice as moot 25 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar) (Entered: 04/23/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461619999/","id":461619999,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476716368/","id":476716368,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/32/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-22T12:21:59.133178-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T12:21:59.143526-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014840189","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reassignment/Disqualification","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-22T12:21:59.094174-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:13.003988-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":"15:13:53","entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":126,"description":"ORDER of RECUSAL and REASSIGNING CASE from District Judge Brandy R. McMillion to District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SSch) (Entered: 04/22/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461526081/","id":461526081,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476619081/","id":476619081,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-21T15:21:44.000936-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-21T15:21:44.015119-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Text-Only Reassignment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-21T15:21:43.957188-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-21T15:21:43.957228-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-21","time_filed":"17:25:23","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459258363/","id":459258363,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474280957/","id":474280957,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/31/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-31T21:28:07.965162-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-31T21:28:07.976168-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"31","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014802024","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Civil Case - Complaint, Amended","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-31T21:28:07.933719-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:12.968474-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-31","time_filed":"23:29:34","entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":121,"description":"AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Curtis Lin against Dow Inc., Jim Fitterling, Jeffrey L. Tate. NO NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Capeci, Michael) (Entered: 03/31/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458396841/","id":458396841,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473399316/","id":473399316,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/30/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-24T14:15:21.481975-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-24T14:15:21.492945-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014788949","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Practice Guidelines","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-24T14:15:21.415159-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:12.938095-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-24","time_filed":"16:16:45","entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":119,"description":"Notice of District Judge Robert J. White's Case Management Requirements. (TVil) (Entered: 03/24/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456951404/","id":456951404,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471924225/","id":471924225,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/29/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-12T11:20:56.019674-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-12T11:20:56.026730-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014768617","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-12T11:20:55.993064-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:12.909462-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-12","time_filed":"14:20:15","entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":117,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas C. Michaud on behalf of Curtis Lin. (Michaud, Thomas) (Entered: 03/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456728189/","id":456728189,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471697106/","id":471697106,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-11T08:20:09.776235-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-11T08:20:09.786171-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Text-Only Reassignment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-11T08:20:09.752690-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-11T08:20:09.752710-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-11","time_filed":"10:57:26","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/456184287/","id":456184287,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/471143904/","id":471143904,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/28/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-06T14:22:24.553106-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T13:03:23.697436-07:00","sha1":"37989e1e676a637d72fb2d25cd381f5a02de4ac1","page_count":10,"file_size":194171,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.28.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.28.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.677 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n NORTHERN DIVISION\n\nTODD A. SARTI, Individually and on ) No. 1:25-cv-12744\nBehalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )\n ) CLASS ACTION\n Plaintiff, )\n Honorable Thomas L. Ludington\n )\n v. District Judge\n )\nDOW INC., THE DOW CHEMICAL ) Honorable Patricia T. Morris\nCOMPANY, JIM FITTERLING, JEFFREY L. ) Magistrate Judge\nTATE, AND KAREN S. CARTER, )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF\n LEAD PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION TO STAY ACTION\n\n\nThomas C. Michaud (P46787) Samuel H. Rudman\nVANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. Michael G. Capeci\n79 Alfred Street Magdalene Economou\nDetroit, Michigan 48201 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN\nTelephone: 313/578-1200 & DOWD LLP\n313/578-1201 (fax) 58 South Service Road\ntmichaud@vmtlaw.com Suite 200\n Melville, New York 11747\nLocal Counsel Telephone: 631/367-7100\n 631/367-1173 (fax)\n srudman@rgrdlaw.com\n mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com\n meconomou@rgrdlaw.com\n\n Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n\nMarch 6, 2026\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.678 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1\n\nII. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2\n\nIII. CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 7\n\n\n\n\n -i-\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.679 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Lead Plaintiff respectfully submits this reply to Defendants\u2019 opposition\n\n(\u201cOpposition\u201d or \u201cOpp.\u201d, ECF No. 27) to Lead Plaintiff\u2019s motion to stay (\u201cMotion\u201d\n\nor \u201cMot.\u201d, ECF No. 25).1\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n As explained below, nothing in the Opposition supports denying the Motion.\n\nIf anything, the press release issued on February 23, 2026 \u2013 after the Motion was\n\nfiled \u2013 by the District Court (E.D. Mich.) concerning this Court (the \u201cPress Release\u201d;\n\nEx. 1) cited in the Opposition (Opp. at 3, PageID.602) further supports a stay. The\n\nPress Release amplifies Lead Plaintiff\u2019s reason for filing the Motion, which is to\n\nclarify which judge will preside in this action. For the same reasons articulated in\n\nthe Motion, this action should not proceed until this Court returns from its voluntary\n\nleave, even if the Jones mandamus petition is resolved in the meantime. Thus, Lead\n\nPlaintiff respectfully submits that this action be stayed until this Court returns and\n\nthe Jones mandamus petition is resolved. Consistent with the Motion, Lead Plaintiff\n\nis prepared to file an amended complaint on March 31, 2026, if the Jones mandamus\n\npetition is resolved and this Court returns by then. Thereafter, Lead Plaintiff is\n\nprepared to file an amended complaint within two weeks of both matters resolving.\n\n\n\n\n1\n All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the same meanings as\nused in the Motion and in the Opposition. All references to numerical exhibits are\nto the exhibits listed in Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Index of Exhibits attached hereto.\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.680 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 10\n\n\n\n\n As alternative relief, and to remedy Defendants\u2019 baseless accusation that Lead\n\nPlaintiff is seeking a procedural advantage because of the Jones mandamus petition\n\n(and, presumably, the Press Release) \u2013 both circumstances outside of Lead\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s control \u2013 Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that this action be reassigned\n\nto a Southern Division judge pursuant to Local Rule 83.11(b)(2). If that occurs\n\nbefore March 31, 2026, Lead Plaintiff will abide by the motion schedule proposed\n\nby Defendants (Opp. Ex. A, PageID.610-11), and this action can proceed without\n\nany delay or need for a stay.\n\nII. ARGUMENT\n\n The Opposition asserts three arguments for why Lead Plaintiff\u2019s requested\n\nstay should be denied, each of which lack merit.\n\n First, Defendants incorrectly fault Lead Plaintiff for not moving to stay\n\nearlier. Opp. at 2-3, PageID.601-602. As Defendants are aware, Lead Plaintiff had\n\nno authority to act on behalf of the putative class in this action until being appointed\n\nas such on January 30, 2026. That is why, on November 19, 2025, Defendants\n\nentered into a scheduling stipulation with the original plaintiff in this action, and not\n\nLead Plaintiff. Mot. Ex. B. Defendants do not contest that by no later than February\n\n3, 2026 \u2013 two business days after being appointed \u2013 Lead Plaintiff informed\n\nDefendants that this action should be stayed in light of the Jones mandamus petition.\n\nMot. at 4, PageID.523. Thus, Lead Plaintiff\u2019s motion is timely.\n\n\n\n -2-\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.681 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Second, Defendants incorrectly argue that this Court stayed the Stayed Cases\n\nonly because motions were pending in all of the Stayed Cases, and there must be\n\nfully briefed motions pending for a stay to be implemented. Opp. at 4-6,\n\nPageID.603-05. Not so. Tellingly, the Opposition does not substantively address\n\nthe stay order for the Stayed Cases (Mot. Ex. A) at all. Opp. at 5, PageID.604.\n\nInstead, the Opposition focuses on an earlier order (Opp. Ex. D)2 that was superseded\n\nby the stay order for the Stayed Cases. Mot. Ex. A at 1, PageID.533 (\u201cThis clarifying\n\norder does just that.\u201d).3 That earlier order cannot invalidate this Court\u2019s later finding\n\nthat \u201cit would be improper for the undersigned to proceed in any of the above-\n\ncaptioned cases until the issue of recusal is first resolved.\u201d Id., PageID.534. In fact,\n\nthe earlier order recognizes the underlying problem with having cases involving\n\nDow proceed before this Court until the Jones mandamus petition is resolved: If the\n\nSixth Circuit orders recusal, this Court \u201cwould need to recuse himself on each of the\n\nnine cases listed above, and seemingly all current and future cases involving Dow\n\nChemical Company, or any of its subsidiaries.\u201d Opp. Ex. D at 3, PageID.665. Thus,\n\nthe earlier order also supports granting a stay.\n\n\n2\n Defendants\u2019 counsel erred in submitting the Opposition exhibits by mislabeling\nthem (i.e., what should be Exhibit D on ECF has a cover sheet that reads \u201cExhibit\nC\u201d). See ECF No. 27-5. For consistency, Lead Plaintiff cites the Opposition exhibits\nusing the lettering in Defendants\u2019 Index. ECF No. 27-1.\n3\n All emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.\n\n\n -3-\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.682 Filed 03/06/26 Page 6 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Moreover, Defendants conveniently ignore that this Court\u2019s stay of the Stayed\n\nCases has been expanded to other cases before this Court involving Dow, including\n\nArchbold v. The Dow Chemical Company, No. 1:25-cv-12134 (E.D. Mich. July 14,\n\n2025) (\u201cArchbold\u201d). In Archbold, Dow\u2019s counsel in this action is (again)\n\nrepresenting the Company. Ex. 2. Like here, no motion was pending in Archbold\n\nwhen this Court stayed it and only an initial complaint had been filed. Id. at 2-3. As\n\nshould happen here, Archbold is subject to the stay order for the Stayed Cases,\n\nnotwithstanding that no motions have been filed, let alone fully briefed. Id. at 2.\n\n Even more egregious is Dow\u2019s failure to acknowledge that in one of the\n\nStayed Cases, Yu v. The Dow Chemical Company, No. 1:25-cv-11478 (E.D. Mich.\n\nMay 19, 2025) (\u201cYu\u201d), Dow\u2019s counsel in this action acknowledged that because\n\n\u201cthis matter had been stayed\u201d there was no reason for plaintiff Yu to \u201cfile a\n\nresponse to Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss pending the stay of proceedings.\u201d Ex.\n\n3 at 2. Dow\u2019s position in Yu \u2013 that parties should not fully brief motions while the\n\nJones mandamus petition is pending \u2013 runs directly counter to its argument in this\n\naction that the parties should expend substantial effort filing an amended complaint\n\nand briefing a motion to dismiss and only then seek a stay. Opp. at 5-6, PageID.604-\n\n05. Unsurprisingly, the Opposition cites no case law (let alone controlling authority)\n\nfor Defendants\u2019 invented standard that a motion needs to be fully briefed and\n\npending before a stay can be issued.\n\n\n\n -4-\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.683 Filed 03/06/26 Page 7 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Shorn of their motion pendency argument, Defendants weakly argue that there\n\nwill be no judicial economy to staying this action until the Jones mandamus petition\n\nis resolved. Opp. at 5-6, PageID.604-05. But the very existence of this Court\u2019s order\n\nstaying the Stayed Cases (plus Archbold) proves otherwise. Mot. Ex. A.\n\n Third, even though Dow has not advanced a prejudice argument in the Stayed\n\nCases (or Archbold) for over seven months, Defendants argue that they \u201cwill suffer\n\nsignificant prejudice if this case is stayed now\u201d because a stay would give Lead\n\nPlaintiff \u201can indefinite amount of time to prepare\u201d an amended complaint. Opp. at\n\n6-7, PageID.605-06. However, Defendants fail to explain (nor cite any case law to\n\nsupport) why the amount of time a plaintiff has for an amended complaint constitutes\n\nany prejudice, let alone sufficient prejudice to warrant denying a stay. Id.\n\n The stay in the Stayed Cases (and Archbold) is presently allowing those\n\nplaintiffs more time to develop their claims, but Dow has never objected to the stays\n\nof those cases at all, let alone on that basis. And Defendants ignore that Lead\n\nPlaintiff has been diligently preparing the amended complaint since the filing of his\n\nlead plaintiff motion on October 28, 2025 \u2013 i.e., over four months ago. Defendants\n\nwill hardly be prejudiced under these circumstances.4\n\n\n4\n In attempting to distinguish the cases cited by Lead Plaintiff where this Court has\nissued stays other than in the Stayed Cases (Opp. at 7, PageID.606), Defendants\ncannot avoid that this Court has repeatedly recognized that an expected ruling from\nthe Sixth Circuit is a legitimate basis for a stay. Mot. at 5, PageID.524. So too here.\n\n\n -5-\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.684 Filed 03/06/26 Page 8 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Further, in Yu, Dow agreed that the stay would allow plaintiff Yu to have an\n\nindefinite amount of time to oppose Dow\u2019s motion to dismiss. Ex. 3 at 1. Under\n\nLocal Rule 7.1(e)(2)(B), Dow will only have 14 days to file a reply to that\n\nopposition, even though plaintiff Yu has had nearly 7.5 months (and counting) to\n\nprepare an opposition. Dow has never claimed prejudice in Yu. Here, however,\n\nDefendants argue that they are prejudiced because granting the requested stay will\n\nmean less time for their motion to dismiss than Lead Plaintiff had to prepare the\n\namended complaint. Opp. at 6, PageID.605. That rings hollow given Dow\u2019s\n\nposition in Yu. Ex. 3 at 1. And, as indicated in the Motion, Lead Plaintiff seeks the\n\nsame amount of time to oppose the motion to dismiss as Defendants will have to file\n\nthe motion to dismiss. Mot. at 2, PageID.521.\n\n At bottom, Lead Plaintiff is eager to vigorously prosecute this action and\n\npresent his claims to a jury. As this Court has recognized, cases involving Dow can\n\nproceed in the Southern Division of this District, and not just in the Northern\n\nDivision. Opp. Ex. D at 1 n.1, PageID.663. Thus, as an alternative to the requested\n\nrelief, and to allay Defendants\u2019 concern about any procedural advantage, Lead\n\nPlaintiff respectfully requests that, pursuant to Local Rule 83.11(b)(2), this action be\n\npromptly reassigned to a Southern Division judge and the proposed schedule\n\noutlined in the Motion be deemed operative. Mot. at 2, PageID.521; Opp. Ex. A.\n\n\n\n\n -6-\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.685 Filed 03/06/26 Page 9 of 10\n\n\n\n\nIII. CONCLUSION\n For the reasons stated in the Motion and herein, Lead Plaintiff respectfully\n\nrequests that this action be stayed pending: (1) resolution of the Jones mandamus\n\npetition; and (2) this Court\u2019s return from its voluntary leave of absence. Or, in the\n\nalternative, Lead Plaintiff respectfully submits that this action should be promptly\n\nreassigned to a Southern Division judge.\n\n DATED: March 6, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n /s/ Michael G. Capeci\n Michael G. Capeci\n ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &\n DOWD LLP\n (Additional counsel listed on cover)\n\n Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n\n\n\n\n -7-\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28, PageID.686 Filed 03/06/26 Page 10 of 10\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n I hereby certify that on March 6, 2026, I authorized the electronic filing of the\n\nforegoing paper with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which will send\n\nnotification of such filing to all counsel of record registered for electronic filing.\n\n\n /s/ Michael G. Capeci\n MICHAEL G. CAPECI\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:09.217025-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014758587","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525722/","id":479525722,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/28/1/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:08.192067-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T02:56:13.796603-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":96192,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"28","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"097014758588","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Index of Exhibits","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525724/","id":479525724,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/28/2/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:08.210668-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T02:56:13.817495-07:00","sha1":"dc7a7af6beaa21c313533b402a8cbde1e18684b4","page_count":2,"file_size":253988,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.28.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.28.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28-2, PageID.688 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28-2, PageID.689 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n\n\n\n\n Press Release: February 23, 2026\n\n U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington\n Takes Voluntary Leave\n The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is aware of recent news\n stories involving United States District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. Since the Court became\n aware of the charges, it has taken all appropriate steps to address the matter consistent with\n its obligations to the public, the federal judiciary, and of course, to Judge Ludington. Today,\n Judge Ludington has volunteered to take a leave of absence from the Court pending\n resolution of the state legal matter. The Court recognizes the seriousness of this matter. The\n law accords to every citizen the presumption of innocence, due process, and many other\n rights. It will govern this matter as it does any other in our judicial system. We value Judge\n Ludington as a colleague and friend. The Court will not comment further while the matter is\n pending.\n\n ********************\n\n\n\n\nTheodore Levin United States Courthouse \u2022 231 W. Lafayette Boulevard \u2022 Detroit, Michigan 48226 \u2022 www.mied.uscourts.gov\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:11.601182-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"097014758589","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 - Press Release","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525725/","id":479525725,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/28/3/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:08.225843-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T02:56:13.837906-07:00","sha1":"b6f50c93288dd6e11e0a295c343d8b373435c07a","page_count":4,"file_size":135654,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.28.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.28.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28-3, PageID.690 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\f\u0005\u0006\u0007\b\n Case\u0003 \u000e\u0003\u000f\b\u0010\u0003\u0011\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28-3, PageID.691 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 4\n \u0012\u0003\u0013\b\u0010\u0014\u0015\u0007\u0016 \u0003\u0013 \u0014\u0017\u0016\u0018\u0019\u001a\u0003\u001b\u001c\u001d\u001e\u0013\u001f\u001b\u001d\u001b !\u0003\"\u001d#\u001d\u001e$\n\n\n\n\n To order copies of any documents listed below, contact Court Express\n courtexpress@thomsonreuters.com, 1-877-362-7387 (Additional charges apply)\n\nThis docket is current through 03/03/2026\n\nToday's Date: 3/6/2026\nSource: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Bay City)\n\nCourt: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Bay City)\nCase Title: Archbold v. The Dow Chemical Company\nCase: 1:25-CV-12134\nJudge: District Judge Thomas L. Ludington\nDate Filed: 07/14/2025\nCase Status: DQ, STAYED\n\nSYNOPSIS INFORMATION\nAllegations: Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff employee on account of her disability, retaliated\n and wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff from the employment.\nDamages: Compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees and costs.\nCOMPLAINT (MANUALLY RETRIEVED) \u0006\u0007\b \b \u0003\u000e \u000f\u0003\u0010\u0011\u0003\u0012\u0013\b\u0014\u0003\u0015\u0010\u0016\u0017\u000e\u000f \u0012\u0003\u0018\u0019\u0015\u001a\u001b\n\n\nCASE INFORMATION\nCase Number: 1:25CV12134\nReferred To: Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris\nJury Demand: Both\nDemand: $75,000\nNature of Suit: Civil Rights: Employment (442)\nKey Nature of Suit: Civil Rights; Employment (110.25)\nJurisdiction: Federal Question\nCause: 42 USC 2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)\n\nPARTICIPANT INFORMATION\n\n\n Britteny Archbold\n\nType: Plaintiff\nAttorney: Carla D. Aikens\nStatus: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED\nFirm Name: Carla D. Aikens, P.C.\nFirm Address: 615 Griswold Street\n Suite 709\n Detroit, MI 48226\nFirm Phone: 844-835-2993\nFirm Fax: 877-454-1680\nEmail Address: carla@aikenslawfirm.com\n\n\n\n The Dow Chemical Company\n\nType: Defendant\nAttorney: Amanda M. Fielder\n\n\n\n\n \u0003$\u0003%&%'\u0003(\u0013\u0010\u000e\u0014\u0010 \u0003\"\u000f\u0017\u0012\u000f\u0007\u0014)\u0003*\u0010\u0003\u0016 \b\u000e\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0010\u0007\b \b \u0003+)!)\u0003,\u0010-\u000f\u0007 \u000e\u000f \u0012\u0003.\u0010\u0007/\u0014) 0\n\f\u0005\u0006\u0007\b\n Case\u0003 \u000e\u0003\u000f\b\u0010\u0003\u0011\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28-3, PageID.692 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 4\n \u0012\u0003\u0013\b\u0010\u0014\u0015\u0007\u0016 \u0003\u0013 \u0014\u0017\u0016\u0018\u0019\u001a\u0003\u001b\u001c\u001d\u001e\u0013\u001f\u001b\u001d\u001b !\u0003\"\u001d#\u001d\u001e$\n\n\nStatus: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED\nFirm Name: Warner Norcross + Judd LLP\nFirm Address: 150 Ottawa Ave. NW\n 1500 Warner Building\n Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2487\nFirm Phone: 616-752-2404\nFirm Fax: 616-222-2404\nEmail Address: afielder@wnj.com\nAttorney: Edward J. Bardelli\nStatus: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED\nFirm Name: Warner Norcross + Judd LLP\nFirm Address: 150 Ottawa Ave. NW\n 1500 Warner Building\n Grand Rapids, MI 49503\nFirm Phone: 616-752-2000\nFirm Fax: 616-222-2165\nEmail Address: ebardelli@wnj.com\nAttorney: Janelle Shankin\nStatus: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED\nFirm Name: Warner Norcross & Judd\nFirm Address: 150 Ottawa Ave\n Ste 1500\n Grand Rapids, MI 49503\nFirm Phone: 616-752-2743\nEmail Address: jshankin@wnj.com\n\nDOCKET PROCEEDINGS (9)\nEntry #: Date: Description:\n7 10/14/2025 NOTICE of Appearance by \u001c\b\u000f\u001d \u001e\u001f\u001f\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0007\u000f \u0017\u000f\u0014\u0012\n Janelle Shankin on behalf of\n The Dow Chemical Company.\n (Shankin, Janelle) (Entered:\n 10/14/2025)\n6 10/14/2025 NOTICE of Appearance by \u001c\b\u000f\u001d \u001e\u001f\u001f\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0007\u000f \u0017\u000f\u0014\u0012\n Amanda M. Fielder on behalf of\n The Dow Chemical Company.\n (Fielder, Amanda) (Entered:\n 10/14/2025)\n 10/14/2025 TEXT-ONLY ORDER STAYING !\u000f \u001f\u0003\"\u0017 \u000f\u0007\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003#\u0010\u0017\u0007\u0012\n CASE Pursuant to Case 1:23-\n cv-11814, Jones v Dow at\n 164 Amended OPINION and\n ORDER Staying Matters\n Pending 6th Circuit Court\n Ruling. SO ORDERED. Signed\n by District Judge Thomas L.\n Ludington. (KWin) (Entered:\n 10/14/2025)\n5 10/13/2025 STATEMENT of DISCLOSURE \u001c\b\u000f\u001d \u001e\u001f\u001f\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0007\u000f \u0017\u000f\u0014\u0012\n of CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS\n and FINANCIAL INTEREST by\n The Dow Chemical Company\n (Bardelli, Edward) (Entered:\n 10/13/2025)\n4 10/13/2025 ANSWER to Complaint with Docket Status\n Affirmative Defenses with Jury \u001c\b\u000f\u001d \u001e\u001f\u001f\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0007\u000f \u0017\u000f\u0014\u0012\n Demand (Reliance Upon) by\n The Dow Chemical Company.\n\n \u0003$\u0003%&%'\u0003(\u0013\u0010\u000e\u0014\u0010 \u0003\"\u000f\u0017\u0012\u000f\u0007\u0014)\u0003*\u0010\u0003\u0016 \b\u000e\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0010\u0007\b \b \u0003+)!)\u0003,\u0010-\u000f\u0007 \u000e\u000f \u0012\u0003.\u0010\u0007/\u0014) %\n\f\u0005\u0006\u0007\b\n Case\u0003 \u000e\u0003\u000f\b\u0010\u0003\u0011\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 28-3, PageID.693 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 4\n \u0012\u0003\u0013\b\u0010\u0014\u0015\u0007\u0016 \u0003\u0013 \u0014\u0017\u0016\u0018\u0019\u001a\u0003\u001b\u001c\u001d\u001e\u0013\u001f\u001b\u001d\u001b !\u0003\"\u001d#\u001d\u001e$\n\n\n (Bardelli, Edward) (Entered:\n 10/13/2025)\n3 09/22/2025 CERTIFICATE of Service/ \u001c\b\u000f\u001d \u001e\u001f\u001f\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0007\u000f \u0017\u000f\u0014\u0012\n Summons Returned Executed.\n The Dow Chemical Company\n served on 9/12/2025, answer\n due 10/3/2025. (Aikens,\n Carla) Modified on 9/23/2025\n (TMul). [SUMMONS SERVED\n ON 09/20/2025] (Entered:\n 09/22/2025)\n2 07/16/2025 SUMMONS Issued for *The \u001c\b\u000f\u001d \u001e\u001f\u001f\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0007\u000f \u0017\u000f\u0014\u0012\n Dow Chemical Company*\n (CShr) (Entered: 07/16/2025)\n 07/16/2025 A United States Magistrate !\u000f \u001f\u0003\"\u0017 \u000f\u0007\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003#\u0010\u0017\u0007\u0012\n Judge of this Court is available\n to conduct all proceedings in\n this civil action in accordance\n with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP\n 73. The Notice, Consent, and\n Reference of a Civil Action\n to a Magistrate Judge form is\n available for download at http://\n www.mied.uscourts.gov (CShr)\n (Entered: 07/16/2025)\n1 07/14/2025 COMPLAINT filed by Britteny \u001c\b\u000f\u001d \u001e\u001f\u001f\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0007\u000f \u0017\u000f\u0014\u0012\n Archbold against The Dow\n Chemical Company with Jury\n Demand. Plaintiff requests\n summons issued. Receipt No:\n AMIEDC-10317245 - Fee: $\n 405. County of 1st Plaintiff:\n Midland - County Where Action\n Arose: Midland - County of 1st\n Defendant: Midland. [ Previously\n dismissed case: No] [ Possible\n companion case(s): None ]\n (Aikens, Carla) (Entered:\n 07/14/2025)\n\n To order copies of any documents listed above, contact Court Express\n courtexpress@thomsonreuters.com, 1-877-362-7387 (Additional charges apply)\n\nEnd of Document \u00a9 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.\n\n\n\n\n \u0003$\u0003%&%'\u0003(\u0013\u0010\u000e\u0014\u0010 \u0003\"\u000f\u0017\u0012\u000f\u0007\u0014)\u0003*\u0010\u0003\u0016 \b\u000e\u0003\u0012\u0010\u0003\u0010\u0007\b \b \u0003+)!)\u0003,\u0010-\u000f\u0007 \u000e\u000f \u0012\u0003.\u0010\u0007/\u0014) 1\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:16.530226-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"097014758590","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2 - Archbold v. The Dow Chemical Co. Docket Sheet","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525726/","id":479525726,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/28/4/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:08.234655-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T02:56:13.850545-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":471325,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"28","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"097014758591","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3 - Yu v. The Dow Chemical Co. Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-06T14:22:24.517091-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:12.829976-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-06","time_filed":"16:59:18","entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":111,"description":"REPLY to Response re 25 MOTION to Stay Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Action filed by Curtis Lin. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Press Release, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Archbold v. The Dow Chemical Co. Docket Sheet, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Yu v. The Dow Chemical Co. Notice) (Capeci, Michael) (Entered: 03/06/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/455364901/","id":455364901,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71232462/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/470306282/","id":470306282,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/27/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-02-27T13:59:14.510430-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T03:32:48.212270-07:00","sha1":"9bf733f367464be7973f12e49e347c41edc6f95b","page_count":14,"file_size":58624,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.595 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n NORTHERN DIVISION\n\n\nTODD A. SARTI, Individually and on\nBehalf of All Others Similarly Situated, C.A. No. 25-cv-12744-TLL-PTM\n\n Plaintiff, District Judge Thomas L. Ludington\n Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris\n v.\n\nDOW, INC., THE DOW CHEMICAL\nCOMPANY, JIM FITTERLING,\nJEFFREY L. TATE and KAREN S.\nCARTER,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 OPPOSITION TO\n LEAD PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION TO STAY ACTION\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.596 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................. ii\nMOST CONTROLLING AUTHORITY................................................................. iii\nINTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................2\nARGUMENT .............................................................................................................3\nCONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................7\n\n\n\n\n i\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.597 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n\n STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED\n\n Should the Court preemptively stay this Action\u2014before Lead Plaintiff files\n\nan amended complaint and the parties brief Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss\u2014even\n\nthough no substantive judicial action in this case is likely to be required until at least\n\nSeptember 14, 2026, when Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss is fully briefed?\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.598 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n\n MOST CONTROLLING AUTHORITY\n\n The controlling or most appropriate authorities for deciding Lead Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nmotion include:\n\n\n 1. Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-cv-11814, ECF No. 164 (E.D. Mich. June\n 30, 2025)\n\n 2. Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-cv-11814, ECF No. 176 (E.D. Mich. July\n 30, 2025)\n\n 3. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936)\n\n 4. Ohio Env\u2019t Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393\n (6th Cir. 1977)\n\n 5. Int\u2019l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. AT&T Network Sys., 1989 WL 78212 (6th Cir.\n 1989)\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.599 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases Page(s)\n\nArkona, LLC v. County of Cheboygan,\n 2021 WL 2381892 (E.D. Mich. June 10, 2021) (Ludington, J.) .......................... 7\n\nDoe v. Univ. of Michigan,\n 2019 WL 13378026 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 15, 2019)................................................. 3\n\nInt\u2019l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. AT&T Network Sys.,\n 1989 WL 78212 (6th Cir. 1989) ....................................................................... 3, 6\n\nJohnson on behalf of X.M. v. Russell,\n 2024 WL 4728904 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2024) (Ludington, J.) ............................. 6\n\nJones v. Dow Chem. Co.,\n No. 1:23-cv-11814, ECF No. 164 (July 30, 2025) ........................................... 1, 4\n\nKanuszewski v. Mich. Dept. of Health & Human Srvs.,\n 2019 WL 1002489 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 1, 2019) (Ludington, J.) ............................ 7\n\nLandis v. N. Am. Co.,\n 299 U.S. 248 (1936) .............................................................................................. 3\n\nOhio Env\u2019t Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div.,\n 565 F.2d 393 (6th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................ 3\n\nRicketts v. Consumers Energy Co.,\n 2017 WL 2351731 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2017) (Ludington, J.) .......................... 7\n\nShupe v. Rocket Companies, Inc.,\n 660 F. Supp. 3d 647 (E.D. Mich. 2023) (Ludington, J.) ...................................... 5\n\nIn re Sushma Jones,\n No. 25-1486 (May 28, 2025) ................................................................................ 2\n\nStatutes\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4 (or \u201cPSLRA\u201d) .......................................................................... 5, 6\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.600 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Lead Plaintiff\u2019s stay request based on the pending recusal motion before the\n\nU.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in In re Sushma Jones is premature and\n\nmay never be ripe for consideration. This Court stayed the Jones case, and eight\n\nrelated cases (collectively, the \u201cStayed Cases\u201d), because there were 36 motions\n\nbriefed and pending in those cases and \u201c[i]t would be improper to decide any other\n\npending motion\u201d in those cases \u201cuntil after the recusal issue had been resolved.\u201d\n\nJones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-cv-11814 (\u201cJones\u201d), ECF No. 164 (\u201cEx. D\u201d)1 at\n\nPageID.4923 (July 30, 2025); Mot. Ex. E at 6-7.\n\n There are no motions briefed and pending in this case. To the contrary, the\n\nparties have agreed upon a stipulated schedule that ensures no substantive judicial\n\naction in this case is likely to be required until at least September 14, 2026, when\n\nDefendants\u2019 motion to dismiss is fully briefed. 2 Imposing a stay now would delay\n\nprogress in the case and prejudice Defendants.\n\n Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Lead Plaintiff\u2019s stay\n\nrequest and enter an order that reflects the stipulated schedule for an amended\n\n\n\n\n1\n Citations to \u201cEx. __\u201d refer to Exhibits described in the accompanying Index of\nExhibits. Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Practice Guidelines and the Local Rules, the\nIndex includes all unpublished materials not previously cited in this case.\n2\n To be precise, Lead Plaintiff has conditioned his agreement on the Court\u2019s denial\nof his stay motion. Mot. at PageID.512.\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.601 Filed 02/27/26 Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n\ncomplaint and motion to dismiss. To assist the Court, a proposed order is attached\n\nhereto as Exhibit A.\n\n STATEMENT OF FACTS\n\n The first complaint was filed in this case on August 29, 2025. ECF No. 1.\n\nLead Plaintiff filed his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff on October 28, 2025.\n\nSee ECF No. 13.\n\n Lead Plaintiff did not move to stay this case before the Court decided his lead\n\nplaintiff motion, notwithstanding that the Jones plaintiff had already moved this\n\nCourt for recusal and petitioned the Sixth Circuit for a writ of mandamus based on\n\nthe Court\u2019s supposed connections with Dow, and this Court had entered an order\n\nstaying Jones and eight related cases. See Jones, ECF Nos. 143 (Ex. B) and 151\n\n(Ex. C) (Motion for Recusal filed on May 8, 2025; Reply to Motion for Recusal filed\n\non May 27, 2025); In re Sushma Jones, No. 25-1486, Dkt. 1-2 (May 28, 2025)\n\n(Ex. E) (petition for writ of mandamus); Jones, ECF No. 176 (order dated July 30,\n\n2025, staying the Stayed Cases).\n\n On January 30, 2026, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff\u2019s motion for\n\nappointment as lead plaintiff, directing Lead Plaintiff and Defendants to submit\n\nwithin 14 days a briefing schedule for an amended complaint and motion to dismiss.\n\nSee ECF Nos. 19, 20. Only on February 13, 2026, two weeks after being appointed\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.602 Filed 02/27/26 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n\nLead Plaintiff and more than three months after submitting his lead plaintiff motion,\n\ndid Lead Plaintiff file his motion to stay. ECF No. 25.\n\n Since then, Defendants have learned that the District Court (E. D. Mich.)\n\nissued a press release dated February 23, 2026, titled \u201cU.S. District Judge Thomas\n\nL. Ludington Takes Voluntary Leave.\u201d Defendants at the present time do not know\n\nof the effect that may have on Lead Plaintiff\u2019s motion to stay, but submit this\n\nOpposition because Lead Plaintiff\u2019s motion is still pending, and it is still\n\ninappropriate for this action to be stayed on the grounds asserted in the motion.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n The broad power to stay proceedings derives from \u201cthe power inherent in\n\nevery court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of\n\ntime and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.\u201d Jones, ECF No. 176 at\n\nPageID.4992 (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Courts\n\ntypically consider \u201c(1) the potentiality of another case having a dispositive effect on\n\nthe case to be stayed, (2) the judicial economy to be saved by waiting on a dispositive\n\ndecision, (3) the public welfare, and (4) the hardship/prejudice to the party opposing\n\nthe stay, given its duration.\u201d Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\nForemost among these considerations is whether the movant \u201cwill suffer irreparable\n\ninjury if the case moves forward\u201d or \u201cgranting the stay will further the interest in\n\neconomical use of judicial time and resources.\u201d Int\u2019l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. AT&T\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.603 Filed 02/27/26 Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n\nNetwork Sys., 1989 WL 78212, at *8 (6th Cir. 1989) (table decision) (citing, among\n\nothers, Landis, 299 U.S. at 255); Doe v. Univ. of Michigan, 2019 WL 13378026, at\n\n*1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 15, 2019) (applying Landis and International Brotherhood).\n\nAbsent a pressing need for delay, Sixth Circuit courts do not grant stays. See Ohio\n\nEnv\u2019t Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th\n\nCir. 1977).\n\n According to Lead Plaintiff, \u201cthe same reasoning underlying this Court\u2019s\n\ndecision to stay Jones and the Dow Cases fully supports granting a stay here until\n\nthe Jones mandamus petition is resolved.\u201d Mot. at 1 (emphasis added). It does not.\n\n The Court\u2019s vacatur decision was expressly based on the fact that there were\n\n36 motions briefed and pending in those cases and \u201c[i]t would be improper to decide\n\nany other pending motion\u201d in those cases \u201cuntil after the recusal issue had been\n\nresolved.\u201d Ex. D at PageID.4923; Mot. Ex. E at 6-7. In support of its holding, the\n\nCourt cited decisions from the Western District of Kentucky and the Eastern District\n\nof Michigan, both of which expressly refer to the impact of a stay on motions\n\npending before the court. See Ex. D at PageID.4923 (citing Honorable Ord. of\n\nKentucky Colonels, Inc. v. Kentucky Colonels Int\u2019l, 2025 WL 1117428, at *1 (W.D.\n\nKy. Apr. 15, 2025) (noting motions for recusal \u201cpresumably impact[] all other\u201d\n\npending motions and should accordingly be \u201caddresse[d] . . . first\u201d); Berryman v.\n\nArtis, 2025 WL 415729, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 2, 2025) (\u201cBecause determination\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.604 Filed 02/27/26 Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n\nof Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion for Recusal has bearing on the Court\u2019s ability to rule on the\n\nremaining motions, the Court will address it first.\u201d)). The Court cited the same\n\nauthority in its follow-up stay order. See Jones, ECF No. 176 at PageID.4992.\n\n In this case, however, there is no fully briefed and pending motion before the\n\nCourt. To the contrary, this case is at its inception and no judicial intervention is\n\nrequired for Lead Plaintiff to file his amended complaint or for the parties to brief\n\nDefendants\u2019 anticipated motion to dismiss. Moreover, the PSLRA\u2019s mandatory\n\ndiscovery stay will be in effect during the motion to dismiss process. 15 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 78u-4(b)(3)(B); Shupe v. Rocket Companies, Inc., 660 F. Supp. 3d 647, 665 (E.D.\n\nMich. 2023) (Ludington, J.) (PSLRA \u201crequire[es] an automatic stay of discovery\n\nduring the pendency of a motion to dismiss\u201d). Thus, unlike in Jones and the Stayed\n\nCases, there is no reason to think that any matters for judicial resolution will ripen\n\nbefore September 14, 2026, when the motion to dismiss is fully briefed. And by\n\nSeptember 14, 2026 \u2013 nearly seven months from now \u2013 the Sixth Circuit may well\n\nhave decided the Jones recusal petition.\n\n Granting a stay at this juncture of the case also would not further \u201cjudicial\n\neconomy.\u201d The outcome of the mandamus petition, whatever it may be, will not\n\nimpact the substance of Lead Plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint or Defendants\u2019 motion\n\nto dismiss. No judicial economy will be achieved by indefinitely deferring the filing\n\nof the amended complaint or the briefing of the motion to dismiss. To the contrary,\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.605 Filed 02/27/26 Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n\nprogress that could otherwise be made by the parties\u2014readying the case for prompt\n\naction when the mandamus petition is resolved\u2014will be stymied. Nor are there any\n\npublic welfare considerations that justify staying this case (and Lead Plaintiff does\n\nnot argue otherwise).\n\n Finally, Lead Plaintiff cannot meet his \u201cburden of proving that [he] will suffer\n\nirreparable injury if the case moves forward, and that the non-moving party will not\n\nbe injured by a stay.\u201d Int\u2019l Bhd., 1989 WL 78212, at *8 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at\n\n255). Unlike in Jones and the Stayed Cases, there are no fully briefed and pending\n\nmotions and no risk of prejudice from the Court deciding them. In contrast,\n\nDefendants will suffer significant prejudice if this case is stayed now. Lead Plaintiff\n\nhas not yet filed his amended complaint in this case, and staying the matter will\n\npermit him an indefinite amount of time to prepare that pleading. This is contrary\n\nto the federal rules and local practice, which promote the just and \u201cspeedy . . .\n\ndetermination of every action,\u201d and will prejudice Defendants, who will not be\n\nafforded that same amount of time to prepare their motion to dismiss.\n\n Neither Jones nor any of the other authority cited by Lead Plaintiff in his\n\nMotion supports a different conclusion.3 They are not PSLRA cases, all were stayed\n\n\n3\n Nor, for that matter, does Lead Plaintiff\u2019s suggestion that the Gerstacker\nFoundation could potentially be a class member. Mot. at PageID.525-26. Lead\nPlaintiff has not sought recusal on that basis and offers no basis to suggest that the\nFoundation acquired Dow shares during the alleged six-month class period between\nJanuary and June 2025.\n\n 6\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.606 Filed 02/27/26 Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n\nwhile the case was fully in progress or had motions pending, and many involved\n\nseparate proceedings that would substantively impact the stayed actions. See Mot.\n\nat PageID.524 (citing Johnson on behalf of X.M. v. Russell, 2024 WL 4728904 (E.D.\n\nMich. Oct. 7, 2024) (Ludington, J.) (staying improper search claim, while motion in\n\nlimine was pending, during pendency of qualified-immunity defense appeal);\n\nKanuszewski v. Mich. Dept. of Health & Human Srvs., 2019 WL 1002489, *1 (E.D.\n\nMich. Mar. 1, 2019) (Ludington, J.) (granting a stay in a \u00a7 1983 action during\n\npendency of plaintiffs\u2019 appeal of dismissal); Arkona, LLC v. County of Cheboygan,\n\n2021 WL 2381892 (E.D. Mich. June 10, 2021) (Ludington, J.) (staying property tax\n\ndispute, during discovery, pending disposition of a dipositive set of cross-appeals);\n\nRicketts v. Consumers Energy Co., 2017 WL 2351731 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2017)\n\n(Ludington, J.) (staying statutory action, during discovery, pending disposition of\n\nappeal concerning definition of key statutory term).\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the Motion and order the\n\nparties to adhere to the schedule in the separately submitted draft order: (1) amended\n\ncomplaint due on March 31, 2026; (2) motion to dismiss due on June 1, 2026; (3)\n\nopposition to motion to dismiss due on July 31, 2026; and (4) reply in support of\n\nmotion to dismiss due on September 14, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.607 Filed 02/27/26 Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n\nDated: February 27, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n WARNER NORCOSS + JUDD LLP\n\n /s/ Jonathan Lauderbach\n Jonathan E. Lauderbach (P51313)\n 715 East Main Street, Suite 110\n Midland, MI 48640\n jlauderbach@wnj.com\n\n ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN\n STERLING US LLP\n\n Lyle Roberts\n 1101 New York Ave., NW\n Washington, DC 20005\n Telephone: (202) 508-8108\n lyle.roberts@aoshearman.com\n\n Mallory Tosch Hoggatt\n 800 Capitol St., Suite 2200\n Houston, TX 77002\n Telephone: (713) 354-4800\n mallory.toschhoggatt@aoshearman.com\n Counsel for Defendants\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27, PageID.608 Filed 02/27/26 Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on February 27, 2026, I authorized the electronic filing\n\nof the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system,\n\nwhich will send a notification of such filing to all counsel of record registered for\n\nelectronic filing.\n\n /s/ Jonathan Lauderbach\n Jonathan E. Lauderbach\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:12.134272-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"097014746847","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525728/","id":479525728,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/27/1/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:11.465714-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T03:33:10.719469-07:00","sha1":"e5251d646d166a0171383c361a5e854a15eadf60","page_count":1,"file_size":4726,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-1, PageID.609 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n NORTHERN DIVISION\n\n\nTODD A. SARTI, Individually and on\nBehalf of All Others Similarly Situated, C.A. No. 25-cv-12744-TLL-PTM\n\n Plaintiff, District Judge Thomas L. Ludington\n Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris\n v.\n\nDOW, INC., THE DOW CHEMICAL\nCOMPANY, JIM FITTERLING,\nJEFFREY L. TATE and KAREN S.\nCARTER,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 OPPOSITION TO\n LEAD PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION TO STAY ACTION\n\n Exhibit A [Proposed] Order Granting Stipulated Briefing Schedule\n\n Exhibit B Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 23-cv-11814, ECF No. 143 (E.D.\n Mich. May 8, 2025), Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Recusal.\n\n Exhibit C Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 23-cv-11814, ECF No. 151 (E.D.\n Mich. May 27, 2025), Plaintiff\u2019s Reply in Support of Motion for\n Recusal.\n\n Exhibit D Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 23-cv-11814, ECF No. 164 (E.D.\n Mich. June 30, 2025), Opinion and Order Vacating Scheduling\n Orders and Denying Motions to Adjourn or Extend Scheduling\n Orders as Moot.\n\n Exhibit E In re Sushma Jones, No. 25-1486 (6th Cir. May 29, 2025),\n Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court\n for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:15.597929-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"097014746848","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Index of Exhibits","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525729/","id":479525729,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/27/2/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:11.483419-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T03:33:13.648083-07:00","sha1":"77e747db226aa9dd1472ad92eabf101428ebb6e0","page_count":2,"file_size":4584,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-2, PageID.610 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n NORTHERN DIVISION\n\n\n TODD A. SARTI, Individually and on\n Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, C.A. No. 25-cv-12744-TLL-PTM\n\n Plaintiff, District Judge Thomas L. Ludington\n Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris\n v.\n\n DOW, INC., THE DOW CHEMICAL\n COMPANY, JIM FITTERLING,\n JEFFREY L. TATE and KAREN S.\n CARTER,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE\n\n Lead Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed that they shall adhere to the\n\nfollowing schedule in the event the Court denies Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Motion to Stay\n\nAction: (1) Lead Plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint shall be due on March 31, 2026; (2)\n\nDefendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the amended complaint shall be due on June 1, 2026;\n\n(3) Lead Plaintiff\u2019s opposition to the motion shall be due on July 31, 2026; and (4)\n\nDefendants\u2019 reply in support of their motion shall be due on September 14, 2026.\n\nHaving denied Lead Plaintiff\u2019s Motion by separate Order, and good cause appearing,\n\n The Parties\u2019 agreed-upon schedule is SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: _____________, 2026\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-2, PageID.611 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n Thomas L. Ludington\n U.S. District Judge\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:19.577257-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"097014746849","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525730/","id":479525730,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/27/3/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:11.491882-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T03:33:23.530866-07:00","sha1":"205a3cc1b48d831c59296634d6a43a4232ba2ecb","page_count":27,"file_size":410701,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-3, PageID.612 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 27\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit A\n\f Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-3, PageID.613 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 27\nJones v. The Dow Chemical Company, Docket No. 1:23-cv-11814 (E.D. Mich. Jul 26, 2023), Court Docket\n\n\n\n Multiple Documents\n\nPart Description\n\n1 143\n\n2 Exhibit A\n\n3 Exhibit B\n\n4 Exhibit C\n\n5 Exhibit D\n\n6 Exhibit E\n\n7 Exhibit F\n\n8 Exhibit G\n\n9 Exhibit H\n\n10 Exhibit I\n\n\n\n\n \u00a9 2026 Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service\n // PAGE 1\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4392\n PageID.614 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 31 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n NORTHERN DIVISION\n SUSHMA JONES, Case No. 1:23-cv-11814\n\n Plaintiff, Hon. Thomas L. Ludington\n Mag. Patricia T. Morris\n v.\n THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,\n\n\n Defendant.\n __________________________________________________________________\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION FOR RECUSAL\n\n NOW COMES Plaintiff, SUSHMA JONES, by and through his counsel,\n\n Carla D. Aikens, PLC, and respectfully moves this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n\n 455 for recusal of Judge Thomas L. Ludington and Magistrate Judge Patricia T.\n\n Morris from further involvement in this matter. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff\n\n states as follows:\n\n\n Plaintiff is a former employee of The Dow Chemical Company and the\n\n named Plaintiff in this action alleging race discrimination, gender discrimination,\n\n retaliation, and a hostile work environment.\n\n\n Throughout this litigation, Plaintiff has observed the Magistrate Judge\n\n engage in conduct that raises a reasonable question as to impartiality, including:\n 1\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4393\n PageID.615 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 42 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n 1. Issuing sanctions against Plaintiff based on minor discovery issues,\n\n without applying similar scrutiny or sanctions to Defendant despite\n\n clear and repeated discovery violations by Defendant;\n\n 2. Allowing Defendant to dictate deposition scheduling, resulting in\n\n substantial prejudice to Plaintiff, while sanctioning Plaintiff for\n\n routine and justified discovery requests \u2013 and even for asking for\n\n discovery to be extended, which it eventually was;\n\n 3. Failing to hold Dow Chemical or its witnesses accountable despite\n\n clear evidence of false testimony and significant discovery\n\n misconduct by Defendant and its counsel.\n\n\n The appearance of bias is further supported by Plaintiff\u2019s declaration, ECF\n\n No. 141, in which she affirms that false testimony by Dow witnesses has been\n\n permitted without inquiry or consequence, and she does not believe that, given this\n\n Honorable Court has a direct relation to the former Chairman and Chief Executive\n\n Officer of Defendant, there is an appearance of impropriety which cannot be\n\n overcome, particularly where the Magistrate Judge\u2019s rulings continue unchecked.\n\n As noted herein, the District Court grants judgment in favor of Defendant in nearly\n\n every case against a Dow entity that he has ever had that proceeded to that point.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4394\n PageID.616 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 53 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n Moreover, nothing has been done to address the false testimony of\n\n Defendant\u2019s witnesses, particularly management-level employees, while discovery\n\n obligations \u2013 even the one discovery request that Dow was ordered to produce \u2013\n\n remain unmet despite the fact that Defendant has filed a motion for summary\n\n judgment. Even with a dispositive motion pending, the District Court is just now\n\n issuing orders on those objections which have been pending for months, and has\n\n now ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions by May 16, 2025 based upon providing light\n\n documents, almost all of which Defendant already had, to Defendant nearly a year\n\n ago. Plaintiff has explained the issue in many prior filings, including the objection\n\n on which the most recent order was based. (ECF No. 103). The order contains a\n\n number of factual inaccuracies which Plaintiff will address at a later time, but the\n\n order\u2019s tone is clear that counsel for Plaintiff is not believed and the Magistrate\n\n Judge\u2019s comments, such as that counsel was \u201cdelaying discovery and precluding\n\n production bordered on bad faith\u201d were accepted without any consideration for\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s arguments to the contrary, while Defendant was incredibly allowed to\n\n attend a hearing on a motion for show cause for not complying with a Court order,\n\n and its counsel can state that it would provide supplemental information when it so\n\n decided, without ever providing (or being asked to provide) any explanations for\n\n its delays.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4395\n PageID.617 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 64 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n All of this pejorative language from the Magistrate Judge came despite the\n\n fact that Dow has still never produced court-ordered information on comparators \u2013\n\n which is highly relevant to her claims\u2013after its counsel falsely stated on the record\n\n (that was also provided to the Court) that it had not been ordered to produce\n\n anything. Instead, after Plaintiff was forced to file a motion to compel because\n\n Defendant would not provide what was ordered, Defendant provided an incomplete\n\n chart seven weeks after the order was entered, with no information, no dates, and\n\n that was obviously missing individuals who should have been included. Yet the\n\n Magistrate Judge \u2013 and then the District Court \u2013 was silent about most of these\n\n issues, with the former just declaring without explanation that Defendant had\n\n complied with its order. It is one matter for the issues raised by Plaintiff and her\n\n counsel to be dealt with and explained away by a court, and quite another for these\n\n concerns to never be addressed nor analyzed at all. This is why Plaintiff submits\n\n that the conduct arises to a due process violation. If Defendant can schedule\n\n depositions 120+ days out and months past the end of discovery, but Plaintiff and\n\n her counsel are accused of intentionally trying to delay discovery by purposely\n\n providing light documents and no explanation is believed, and her counsel is\n\n further punished for asking to conduct discovery in the time set forth by the rules,\n\n then fundamental fairness is absent from the proceedings.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4396\n PageID.618 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 75 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n In addition, the perjury of Defendant\u2019s witnesses has been consistently\n\n accepted by the Magistrate Judge, with minimal justification, and the District Court\n\n has failed to address this serious matter threatening the due process rights of\n\n Plaintiff and the integrity of this and numerous related proceedings against Dow\n\n Chemical involving discrimination claims. The Magistrate Judge has further\n\n recommended sanctions against Plaintiff\u2019s counsel without ever having had\n\n undersigned counsel appear for any hearing, and without clear and convincing\n\n evidence, further demonstrating bias and unequal treatment. At the March 26, 2025\n\n hearing in this matter \u2013 the sole time undersigned counsel has ever appeared in\n\n front of the District Court (Ex. A \u2013 Transcript of 3.26.25 Proceedings), Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n counsel explicitly detailed disparate treatment, including unjust sanctions against\n\n Plaintiff, preferential treatment for Defendant, and ignored false testimony, with\n\n Defendant and its counsel having no obligation at all to follow the rules of\n\n discovery.\n\n\n Consequently, as counsel explained, the plaintiffs filing lawsuits for racial\n\n discrimination are fielding requests for communications and engagement\n\n agreements with their attorney, and Dow counsel feels so assured that such a thing\n\n is discoverable that it incredulously filed a motion to compel the engagement\n\n agreement, claiming the Magistrate Judge ordered that the agreement was not\n\n confidential and had to be turned over. The fact that there is even a question that\n 5\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4397\n PageID.619 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 86 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n this type of motion might be granted makes clear that Dow has no concern\n\n whatsoever for what the actual law is.\n\n\n Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 455, recusal is appropriate where a judge\u2019s\n\n impartiality might reasonably be questioned or where there is actual bias or\n\n prejudice concerning a party. Defendant has been allowed to flout its discovery\n\n obligations and not produce relevant information about the same witnesses who are\n\n relevant in multiple cases. The same is severe enough to amount to a due process\n\n violation which is preventing counsel\u2019s clients suing Dow from obtaining pertinent\n\n information to support their cases. Even when Defendant does provide limited\n\n information, Defendant\u2019s witnesses have been permitted to deny that they know\n\n anything about racial discrimination claims when the documents clearly\n\n demonstrate the opposite. All of the above would give the appearance to any\n\n reasonable person that the Magistrate Judge and District Court are not impartial\n\n and are biased toward Dow and its interests, even if they may not believe it to be\n\n so.\n\n\n WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests\n\n that Judge Thomas L. Ludington and Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris recuse\n\n themselves from further proceedings in this matter and that new judges be\n\n assigned.\n\n\n 6\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4398\n PageID.620 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 97 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n Dated: May 7, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Carla D. Aikens\n Carla D. Aikens (P69530)\n Carla D. Aikens, PLC\n 615 Griswold St., Suite 709\n Detroit, MI 48226\n (844) 835-2993\n carla@aikenslawfirm.com\n Attorney for Plaintiff\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM\n 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 27-3,\n 143, PageID.4399\n PageID.621 Filed\n Filed02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page10\n 8 of\n of 25\n 27\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM\n 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 27-3,\n 143, PageID.4400\n PageID.622 Filed\n Filed02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page11\n 9 of\n of 25\n 27\n\n\n\n\n QUESTION PRESENTED\n Should the District Court and the Magistrate Judge recuse themselves where their\n impartiality may reasonably be questioned?\n Plaintiff answers: Yes\n Defendant would answer: No\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4401\n PageID.623 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 12\n 10 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n Cases\n Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (1925) ..........................................................20\n Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) ........................15\n Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) ...........................................................24\n NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585 (6th Cir. 1987) ...................... 16, 20\n Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954)..............................................................24\n Statutes\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 455 .................................................................................................... 6, 11\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4402\n PageID.624 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 13\n 11 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n NORTHERN DIVISION\n SUSHMA JONES, Case No. 1:24-cv-11814\n\n Plaintiff, Hon. Thomas L. Ludington\n Mag. Patricia T. Morris\n v.\n THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,\n\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION FOR RECUSAL\n\n\n I. Introduction\n Plaintiff Sushma Jones respectfully submits this Brief in support of his\n\n Motion for Recusal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 455(a) and 455(b)(1). Recusal is\n\n warranted where the judge\u2019s impartiality \u201cmight reasonably be questioned,\u201d and\n\n where the judge \u201chas a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.\u201d Here, the\n\n District Court\u2019s mere presiding over this case as the son of the former Chairman\n\n and CEO of Dow \u2013 and not intervening where a serious matter of perjury and bias\n\n has been raised as to the Magistrate Judge would cause any reasonable person to\n\n question the impartiality of the court. Further, the Magistrate Judge, whose conduct\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4403\n PageID.625 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 14\n 12 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n creates the appearance of bias in favor of Dow, has disregarded untruthful sworn\n\n testimony from Dow witnesses that goes to the heart of Plaintiff\u2019s claims.\n\n The Court\u2019s failure to even address the orders not complied with and the\n\n false testimony of its testimony\u2014while taking punitive action against Plaintiff and\n\n her counsel\u2014has undermined the appearance of neutrality.\n\n II. LEGAL STANDARD\n Under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 455(a), a judge \u201cshall disqualify himself in any\n\n proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.\u201d Section\n\n 455(b)(1) further provides for disqualification where the judge \u201chas a personal bias\n\n or prejudice concerning a party.\u201d This standard is objective: \u201c[W]hether a\n\n reasonable person knowing all the relevant facts would question the judge\u2019s\n\n impartiality.\u201d United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1349 (6th Cir. 1993). Actual\n\n bias is not required. Rather, the appearance of bias is sufficient to mandate recusal.\n\n Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988). Quoting the\n\n Court of Appeal\u2019s opinion in the matter, the Liljeberg court stated the following:\n\n Under section 455(a), therefore, recusal is required even\n when a judge lacks actual knowledge of the facts\n indicating his interest or bias in the case if a reasonable\n person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect that\n the judge would have actual knowledge.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4404\n PageID.626 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 15\n 13 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n (quoting Health Services Acquisition Corp. v. Liljeberg, 796 F. 2d 796, 802 (5th\n\n Cir. 1986). The Fifth Circuit underscored that the standard is mandatory and self-\n\n executing and a motion need not be filed:\n\n Furthermore, the terms of section 455(a) are mandatory\n and self-executing; the judge must recuse himself where\n there is an appearance of partiality regardless of\n whether a motion to recuse had been made.\n\n Health Services, 796. F. 2d at 802 (emphasis added).\n\n Further, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 455(b)(4) and (5)(i) provide for recusal under the\n\n following circumstances:\n\n (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or\n his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a\n financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or\n in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that\n could be substantially affected by the outcome of the\n proceeding;\n (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree\n of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a\n person:\n (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or\n trustee of a party\u2026\n\n\n III. ARGUMENT\n\n A. The District Judge\u2019s Familial Ties to Dow Create an Appearance of\n Impropriety\n\n As the son of the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of\n\n Defendant, this relationship to Defendant would cause any reasonable person to\n\n\n 13\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4405\n PageID.627 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 16\n 14 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n question whether the judge could truly be impartial, despite one\u2019s best intentions to\n\n do so. That familial relationship gives rise to a direct and reasonable concern about\n\n impartiality. While the judge may not currently hold a financial interest in Dow,\n\n Plaintiff does not know if there are any trusts or stock that may have been received\n\n or put in place given the status as CEO, as this is not uncommon for such a high-\n\n ranking executive to have. The appearance of alignment or deference to the\n\n company\u2019s interests is unavoidable given a company\u2019s historical importance to any\n\n family\u2019s livelihood, as demonstrated by the statute\u2019s bright line standard for third\n\n degree relatives.\n\n This concern of bias is not speculative. Individuals employed by Dow have\n\n been allowed to give perjured testimony without consequence, and Plaintiff has\n\n proceeded to the point of summary judgment without any question regarding the\n\n propriety of these witnesses\u2019 testimony, which has caused the inference of bias to\n\n become even stronger.\n\n Recusal is required under \u00a7 455(a) for the appearance of bias and also under\n\n \u00a7 455(b)(5)(i), where a judge or close relative is an officer or director of a party.\n\n While the former CEO relationship may not be current, the family tie alone\u2014\n\n especially in a discrimination case against the same company\u2014triggers concern\n\n that the judge\u2019s impartiality \u201cmight reasonably be questioned.\u201d The statute\n\n establishes that a person with the same familial degree as the District Court would\n 14\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4406\n PageID.628 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 17\n 15 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n have to recuse themselves if the family member is an officer. The fact that the\n\n District Court\u2019s father was the highest office in the company raises the same\n\n concerns, particularly where the judge has lived (apparently exclusively) in a town\n\n dominated by Defendant and attended Dow High School. This concern is\n\n underscored in an area such as Midland, colloquially known to those in the\n\n Southern part of the state as \u201cDow country\u201d due to the strong tie to Dow in the\n\n Midland/Saginaw area. See Midland: Leaders say Dow Chemical is committed to\n\n city\u2019s future, https://www.bridgemi.com/business-bridge/midland-leaders-say-dow-\n\n chemical-committed-citys-future (noting that Dow was Midland\u2019s largest employer\n\n in 2016) (last visited May 8, 2025).\n\n B. The Magistrate Judge\u2019s Conduct Demonstrates a Pattern of Bias and\n\n Disparate Treatment, and the District Court Has Not Intervened\n\n Plaintiff seeks recusal of Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris under 28\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7 455(a) due to a well-documented and ongoing pattern of one-sided\n\n rulings, prejudicial assumptions, and unequal application of sanctions that have\n\n denied Plaintiff fair process. The standard under \u00a7 455(a) is not whether actual bias\n\n exists, but whether a reasonable observer would question the judge\u2019s impartiality.\n\n Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988). That\n\n standard is easily met here, not only because of the conduct in this case, but\n\n because the March 26, 2025 hearing transcript (Ex. A) \u2013 a hearing which Plaintiff\n 15\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4407\n PageID.629 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 18\n 16 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n attended herself \u2013 and the Motion to Recuse filed in Walker v. Dow (Ex. B, 1:23-\n\n cv-11814-TLL-PTM, ECF No. 48) reflect a pervasive and consistent pattern of\n\n judicial conduct that undermines fairness for plaintiffs suing Dow. Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n counsel, who represents fourteen plaintiffs suing Dow \u2013 twelve in Michigan and\n\n two in Kentucky \u2013 stated at the hearing:\n\n \u201cWe\u2019re going to get sanctioned. We\u2019re going to get show\n caused\u2026 All I\u2019m trying to do is conduct discovery\u2026\n\n (Ex. A, PageID.4292\u20134293). \u201cPeople are not telling the truth under oath\u2026 I tell\n\n you about it, and I\u2019m still getting sanctioned.\u201d (Id., PageID.4294). Counsel also\n\n emphasized the chilling effect of litigating before Magistrate Judge Morris:\n\n My associate...it causes her actual anxiety to come in\n here with Judge Morris and have it feel like there\u2019s a\n third defendant [counsel].\n\n (Id., PageID.4296). Plaintiff\u2019s concern is not based on isolated rulings, but on the\n\n cumulative effect of multiple acts across cases, including:\n\n \u2022 Recommending civil contempt against Plaintiff\u2019s counsel without clear and\n\n convincing evidence, or even a hearing, in direct violation of Sixth Circuit\n\n standards. NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 590 (6th Cir.\n\n 1987);\n\n \u2022 Ignoring documented perjury by Dow managers Jason Ellis and Jessica\n\n Bruske, while punishing Plaintiff\u2019s counsel for routine deposition questions;\n 16\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4408\n PageID.630 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 19\n 17 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Permitting defense counsel to pursue privileged materials like Plaintiff's\n\n engagement agreements\u2014requests wholly lacking legal basis under Rule 26\n\n for an employment discrimination claim\u2014while rejecting Plaintiff\u2019s motions\n\n to compel discovery of directly relevant witnesses;\n\n \u2022 Making factual findings against plaintiffs based on no evidence or out-of-\n\n context assumptions, as shown in the sealed sanctions recommendation and\n\n \u201clight document\u201d order in this case, where the District Court continually\n\n upholds sanctions relying on the Magistrate Judge\u2019s credibility findings.\n\n These concerns were echoed by plaintiff Ayanna Walker in her Motion to Recuse\n\n Magistrate Judge Morris (Ex. B, ECF No. 48), where she described a similar\n\n pattern:\n\n Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris has issued a series of\n rulings that reflect not just adverse decisions, but a\n consistent and troubling imbalance\u2026 Plaintiff has been\n denied critical discovery, her counsel sanctioned for\n routine advocacy, and compelled to produce privileged\n materials\u2014all while Defendant\u2019s obstructive conduct has\n gone unpunished.\n\n (Ex. B, PageID.986\u2013987). As noted in Walker, which occurred here in Ms. Jones\u2019\n\n case, \u201cDefendant delayed producing discovery and refused to schedule depositions\n\n until after discovery closed, yet sanctions have never been considered\u2026\u201d (Id.,\n\n PageID.990\u2013991).\n\n\n 17\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4409\n PageID.631 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 20\n 18 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff was the first plaintiff to have the courage to come forward and try\n\n to hold Dow accountable for the way she was treated that caused her great mental\n\n anguish, that continues to plague her to this day. Having unreasonable suspicions\n\n that a person trying to produce documents, and their counsel who knows that this\n\n obligation exists, is doing something untoward, could be a matter of opinion if not\n\n for the fact that both the Magistrate Judge and District Court are ignoring Plaintiff\n\n and her counsel\u2019s concerns, and wholesale accepting the opinion of the Magistrate\n\n Judge when her impartiality has been questioned on multiple occasions. The\n\n District Court\u2019s comments in recent orders suggest that Plaintiff filing discovery\n\n motions is a \u201cnuisance\u201d rather than due to the fact that Defendant is actually not\n\n providing information and intentionally delaying discovery. There is no\n\n recognition whatsoever by the District Court that these concerns have even been\n\n raised by any of the plaintiffs in any of the cases. Perhaps the belief is \u2013 for\n\n whatever reason \u2013 that counsel for Plaintiff is somehow dictating the feelings of\n\n the plaintiffs, but the contrary is true. The plaintiffs represented by undersigned\n\n counsel came forward after seeing that Plaintiff filed suit. Their declarations and\n\n deposition testimony make clear that their mistreatment by Dow \u2013 from calling\n\n them Harriet Tubman (Plaintiff), to hanging monkeys on lockers (Roger Ivey), to\n\n referring to them the \u201cn\u201d word (Charles Baston), in addition to other myriad issues\n\n such as being passed over constantly for promotions \u2013 is serious, and having their\n\n 18\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4410\n PageID.632 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 21\n 19 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n concerns dismissed and not properly adjudicated causes a deep lack of trust in the\n\n Midland/Saginaw community as a whole that the judicial system is fair and open to\n\n everyone. Accusing Plaintiff\u2019s counsel of being dishonest when under attack by\n\n the Magistrate Judge\u2019s accusations of impropriety to only Plaintiff\u2019s side only\n\n deepens the appearance of bias.\n\n Despite these concerns being raised for months now, the District Court\n\n continues to issue orders \u2013 all of them, in favor of Dow \u2013 without even\n\n acknowledging that a due process violation has been alleged by the same person\n\n whose impartiality is being questioned. Plaintiff further had the hearing on\n\n Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment canceled after filing her declaration of\n\n bias on the part of the District Court, which stated in the order that the court would\n\n decide the motion on the pleadings submitted. This action further increased\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s concerns.\n\n\n C. The Magistrate Judge Recommended Sanctions Without a Hearing and\n Without Evidence\n\n The fact that the District Court and Magistrate Judge are the only two judges\n\n in Bay City \u2013 and have been for a decade \u2013would cause one to question whether\n\n they would be able to truly disagree with one another given the many years spent\n\n working in the same building, further compounded by the fact that all cases filed\n\n against Dow are only assigned to the two of them, nearly without exception. The\n\n 19\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4411\n PageID.633 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 22\n 20 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n District Court has accepted wholesale every finding of \u201cfact\u201d of the Magistrate\n\n Judge, and has still continued to do so despite the fact that impartiality amounting\n\n to a constitutional violation has been alleged.\n\n\n Among the many issues that undersigned counsel has had with the\n\n Magistrate Judge\u2019s handling of matters involving Defendant, the Magistrate Judge\n\n issued a February 25, 2025 recommendation that Plaintiff\u2019s counsel be held in civil\n\n contempt in the Baston v. Dow for allegedly referring to confidential documents\n\n during a deposition that were not ever shown. Despite this, the Magistrate Judge\n\n presumed misconduct, accused counsel of evasion, and recommended sanctions\n\n without even holding a hearing. This violates due process. Cooke v. United States,\n\n 267 U.S. 517, 536 (1925). The applicable legal standard for contempt\u2014clear and\n\n convincing evidence\u2014was never sought nor met. NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc.,\n\n 829 F.2d 585, 590 (6th Cir. 1987). Such a harsh sanction, based on speculative\n\n findings and without affording Plaintiff\u2019s counsel the right to be heard, reflects a\n\n punitive approach inconsistent with the neutral administration of justice.\n\n\n D. The Court Has Ignored Perjury by Dow Witnesses While Punishing\n Plaintiff\u2019s Counsel\n\n In the Baston matter, also before this Court, Mr. Baston submitted a sworn\n\n declaration in which he stated:\n\n\n\n 20\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4412\n PageID.634 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 23\n 21 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n I can\u2019t understand how the court could let Jessy and\n Jason say they don\u2019t know anything about my complaints\n of racial discrimination when I talked to them about it\n and I know they talked to them about the complaint I\n filed.\n\n Someone not telling the truth when they are under oath\n seems like a big problem but the court is not doing\n anything about that\u2026\n\n We should be able to have a judge who will decide things\n based on listening to everyone fairly\u2026 but I don\u2019t see\n that happening.\n\n (Baston v. Dow, Declaration of Charles Baston, Case No. 1:24-cv-12411-TLL-\n\n PTM, ECF No. 40, May 7, 2025). Mr. Baston\u2019s statements reflect a reasonable and\n\n deeply personal concern about the fairness of the proceedings before this Court.\n\n Plaintiff has directly observed sworn testimony by Dow witnesses\u2014including\n\n Jason Ellis and Jessica Bruske \u2013which she knew to be false, but which has not been\n\n challenged by the Court, even when Plaintiff presented evidence to support the\n\n same. This one-sided treatment\u2014sanctioning Plaintiff\u2019s counsel for asking\n\n depositions to be taken in the discovery period, but accepting false statements from\n\n Defendant\u2019s key witnesses, creates a strong appearance of partiality and is\n\n inconsistent with the duty of impartial adjudication.\n\n E. The Record From Other Cases Establish the Appearance of Bias\n\n Plaintiff could not locate a single case where either the Magistrate Judge or\n\n the District Court had ever sanctioned Dow for anything, despite the fact that\n\n 21\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4413\n PageID.635 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 24\n 22 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n motions to compel against are frequent filings in cases in which it is involved.\n\n Even on the three occasions (at least as publicly available) that the Magistrate\n\n Judge has ever granted a motion to compel against a Dow entity (and even where\n\n she did so on a sole occasion, in part, in ordering production of comparator\n\n information), Dow was never sanctioned nor ordered to pay costs. (Ex. C, Schram\n\n v. Dow Corning Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-14312-DML-PTM, ECF No. 30, Aug. 29,\n\n 20171; Ex. E, Woloshik v. The Dow Chemical Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-10402-TLL-\n\n PTM, ECF No. 22, Oct. 23, 2020; Ex. F, Porte v. Dow Business Service, LLC,\n\n Case No. 1:17-cv-12874-TLL-PTM, ECF No. 27). Counsel for Dow in the present\n\n case \u2013 Amanda Fielder and Edward Bardelli \u2013also represented the Dow defendant\n\n in all three cases. In the Woloshik case, when the Magistrate Judge denied the\n\n plaintiff\u2019s second motion to compel, only Dow \u2013 which was represented by the\n\n same counsel here \u2013 was granted costs for opposing the motion. (Ex G, Woloshik,\n\n at ECF No. 44).\n\n Moreover, per the records publicly available, the District Court has granted\n\n summary judgment in part in 100% of cases in which it has decided motions for\n\n summary judgment filed by Dow, and on only two occasions \u2013 neither of which\n\n\n\n\n 1\n A second motion to compel was granted after Judge David Lawson had vacated\n the Magistrate Judge\u2019s prior order denying the motion to compel and asked that the\n matter be briefed on a limited topic. (Ex. D, id. at ECF No. 66, Feb. 12, 2018).\n 22\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4414\n PageID.636 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 25\n 23 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n involved claims of racial discrimination \u2013 has the District Court denied summary\n\n judgment in part. (Ex. H, Docket Sheet of Lavigne v. Dow (2010) and Hartman v.\n\n Dow (2014)). In contrast, in the publicly available records, the District Court has\n\n granted judgment in full in favor of Dow in 9 out of the 11 cases that have\n\n proceeded to that point. (Ex I, Docket Sheet of Dabrowski v. Dow (2007); Rohde v.\n\n Dow (2009), Geiling v. Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. et al2 (2012), Jennings v.\n\n Dow (2013), Mckenna v. Aetna Life Insurance Company3 (2014), Gason v. Dow\n\n (2016), Anwar v. Dow (2016); Johnston v. Dow Employees\u2019 Pension Plan (2016);\n\n Levine v. Liveris (2016)4)5.\n\n Thus, it is not just conjecture, but the numbers bear out that the bias in favor\n\n of Dow is real and well-proceeded any of the cases filed by the current plaintiffs\n\n represented by undersigned counsel.\n\n F. Recusal Is Required to Preserve the Appearance of Fairness\n\n\n 2\n Dow Chemical Corporation was also a named Defendant and Hemlock\n Semiconductor was noted to be a \u201cjoint venture of Dow Corning.\u201d\n 3\n Dow Corning Corporation LTD Plan was a named Defendant in this case.\n 4\n Andrew N. Liveris was noted in the opinion as \u201cthe President, CEO, and\n Chairman of Dow.\u201d (Opinion Granting Motion to Dismiss, Case No. 1:16-cv-\n 11255-TLL-PTM, ECF No. 29, Oct. 19, 2016).\n 5\n Plaintiff did not include the following cases filed in which judgment was entered\n in favor of Dow, as they were dismissed on procedural grounds: 1) Cassaday v.\n Dow Chemical Co, Case No. 1:22-cv-11555-TLL-PTM; 2) Vardon v. Dow\n Chemical Co., Case 1:11-cv-12512-TLL-CEB; McCann v. Air Products and\n Chemicals, Inc. et al, Case 1:08-cv-14235-TLL-CEB); Thomas v. Dow Chemical,\n Case 1:08-cv-11911-TLL-CEB\n 23\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4415\n PageID.637 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 26\n 24 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n Even if actual bias is not present, the law requires recusal when a judge\u2019s\n\n conduct creates the appearance of favoritism or antagonism. Liteky v. United\n\n States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). \u201c[J]ustice must satisfy the appearance of justice.\u201d\n\n Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954). The appearance that one side\u2014\n\n Dow\u2014is being protected, while Plaintiff and her counsel are being punished, is\n\n more than sufficient to require disqualification under \u00a7 455(a). Under these\n\n circumstances, a reasonable observer would conclude that recusal is necessary.\n\n IV. CONCLUSION\n For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Magistrate\n\n Judge Patricia T. Morris be recused from this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n\n 455(a) and 455(b)(1), and that a new judge and Magistrate Judge be assigned to\n\n ensure impartial adjudication.\n\n\n Dated: May 7, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Carla D. Aikens\n Carla D. Aikens (P69530)\n Carla D. Aikens, PLC\n 615 Griswold St., Suite 709\n Detroit, MI 48226\n (844) 835-2993\n carla@aikenslawfirm.com\n Attorney for Plaintiff\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 143,\n 27-3,PageID.4416\n PageID.638 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 05/08/25 Page\n Page 27\n 25 of\n of 27\n 25\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument was served\n\n upon all parties to the above cause to each of the attorneys of record herein on May\n\n 8, 2025.\n\n /s/ Mykelin Izeluk\n Mykelin Izeluk\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:20.781466-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"097014746850","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525731/","id":479525731,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/27/4/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:11.500325-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T03:26:22.604641-07:00","sha1":"e8837ccb6a8248e699883c3b1668225c78d4796c","page_count":23,"file_size":1976449,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-4, PageID.639 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 23\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B\n\f Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-4, PageID.640 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 23\nJones v. The Dow Chemical Company, Docket No. 1:23-cv-11814 (E.D. Mich. Jul 26, 2023), Court Docket\n\n\n\n Multiple Documents\n\nPart Description\n\n1 151\n\n2 Exhibit A\n\n3 Exhibit B\n\n\n\n\n \u00a9 2026 Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service\n // PAGE 1\n\fCase\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM\n 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 27-4,\n 151, PageID.4680\n PageID.641 Filed\n Filed02/27/26\n 05/27/25 Page\n Page31ofof23\n 6\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n NORTHERN DIVISION\n\n\nSUSHMA JONES, Case No.: 1:23-cv-11814\n\n Plaintiff,\n\nv.\nTHE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\nHon. Thomas L. Ludington\n\nMag. Judge Patricia T. Morris\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL\n Plaintiff Sushma Jones, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this\n\nReply in support of her Motion for Recusal (ECF No. 143) and states as follows:\n\n Defendant\u2019s response (ECF No. 147) fails to rebut the fundamental issue underlying\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s motion: that a reasonable observer, aware of the facts, would question whether\n\nPlaintiff has been and will be afforded a fair and impartial adjudication in this Court. This case\n\ninvolves not only systemic disparities in due process, but also a documented familial connection\n\nbetween the presiding judge and Dow\u2019s former leadership\u2014at a level expressly recognized by\n\nCongress in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 455(b)(5)(i). Defendant\u2019s assertion that Plaintiff\u2019s concerns are merely\n\n\u201cdisagreement\u201d with rulings trivializes extensive and documented issues of judicial conduct and\n\nappearance of bias, including one-sided sanctions, unaddressed perjury, and the near-unbroken\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM\n 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 27-4,\n 151, PageID.4681\n PageID.642 Filed\n Filed02/27/26\n 05/27/25 Page\n Page42ofof23\n 6\n\n\n\n\nhistory of favorable rulings for Dow in this Court \u2013 all while ignoring the law that applies to its\n\nactions.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n I. DEFENDANT CONCEDES THE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUDGE\n LUDINGTON AND DOW\u2019S FORMER CEO\n\n Defendant does not dispute that Judge Ludington is the son of John C. Ludington, the\n\nformer Chairman and CEO of Dow Corning, a Dow-affiliated company. Instead, it minimizes\n\nthis relationship by claiming Dow Corning was a \u201cseparate entity\u201d and the connection too\n\nattenuated. This is false. Dow Corning was a joint venture of The Dow Chemical Company, and\n\nnow Dow Corning is its wholly-owned subsidiary. Exhibit A \u2013 History of Dow Timeline (also\n\nfound at https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/about-dow/company/history/timeline.html#tabs-\n\n708e4faf43-item-9ab3605862-tab) (last visited May 27, 2025).\n\n\n\n\n Moreover, Dow recognizes Mr. Ludington\u2019s impact on the current Dow company in its\n\nown literature:\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM\n 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 27-4,\n 151, PageID.4682\n PageID.643 Filed\n Filed02/27/26\n 05/27/25 Page\n Page53ofof23\n 6\n\n\n\n\nExhibit B \u2013 Dow Corning Facility Update. The document is a document of Defendant Dow,\n\nnot Dow Corning:\n\n\n\n\n(Id. at 7). 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 455(b)(5)(i) mandates recusal when a third-degree relative is an officer or\n\ndirector of a party. Dow\u2019s own website confirmed that Dow acquired full ownership of Dow\n\nCorning in 2016, calling it a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. Even\n\nabsent a current officer relationship, the appearance of bias arising from such a direct familial\n\nconnection\u2014particularly where the judge resides and presides in a jurisdiction colloquially\n\nreferred to as \u201cDow country\u201d\u2014triggers \u00a7 455(a). Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp.,\n\n486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988) (appearance of impropriety requires recusal regardless of actual bias).\n\n II. DEFENDANT FAILS TO ADDRESS UNEQUAL TREATMENT, INCLUDING\n IGNORING PERJURY AND IMPOSING ONE-SIDED SANCTIONS\n\n Defendant\u2019s assertion that Plaintiff simply \u201cdisagrees\u201d with prior rulings ignores the\n\nrecord:\n\n\n \u2022 The Court has sanctioned Plaintiff\u2019s counsel without hearing or clear and\n convincing evidence, violating Sixth Circuit standards. NLRB v. Cincinnati\n Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 590 (6th Cir. 1987)).\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM\n 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 27-4,\n 151, PageID.4683\n PageID.644 Filed\n Filed02/27/26\n 05/27/25 Page\n Page64ofof23\n 6\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 The same Court refused to sanction Dow or compel compliance when it\n disobeyed a court order to produce comparator data\u2014then accepted Dow\u2019s\n incomplete chart as \u201ccompliance\u201d without explanation.\n\n \u2022 Plaintiff has produced testimony and documents proving that Dow witnesses,\n including Jessica Bruske and Jason Ellis, falsely denied knowledge of complaints,\n and the District Court made comments regarding her intentions, which could not\n be known from reading a transcript, and also that Bruske had a memory lapse\n even when she very clearly said \u201cno\u201d rather than \u201cI don\u2019t recall.\u201d No consequence\n has ever followed.\n Defendant\u2019s defense of Bruske\u2019s purported \u201cmemory lapse\u201d as \u201cnot enough for Plaintiff\u2019s\n\ncounsel\u201d evades the issue: perjury is not excused by professed ignorance when contradicted by\n\nwritten documentation.1 That the Magistrate Judge and then the District Court ruled no perjury\n\noccurred without actually inquiring into the matter proves Plaintiff\u2019s point about the chilling and\n\nexclusionary impact of judicial conduct.\n\n III. DEFENDANT IGNORES THE DUE PROCESS IMPLICATIONS OF\n\n CUMULATIVE BIAS\n\n Recusal is not a punishment or a finding of actual bias\u2014it is a safeguard to ensure that\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s due process rights are respected. The cumulative record of this Court\u2019s rulings\n\nincludes:\n\n\n \u2022 Granting summary judgment for Dow in every discrimination claim before it, and\n only denying summary judgment twice on retaliation claims;\n\n \u2022 Never sanctioning Dow, despite repeated discovery violations, even one that the\n Court found it committed in obstructing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition;\n\n \u2022 Ordering Plaintiff to pay sanctions for producing documents that were duplicative\n of what Dow already had, without requiring Dow to even attach the documents in\n question for the Court to assess the issue;\n\n\n\n1\n Bruske has been confronted with the same information in other depositions and still continues\nto falsely state that she has had no complaints of racial discrimination.\n 4\n\fCase\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM\n 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 27-4,\n 151, PageID.4684\n PageID.645 Filed\n Filed02/27/26\n 05/27/25 Page\n Page75ofof23\n 6\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Canceling the summary judgment hearing after Plaintiff filed a declaration of\n bias, and issuing dispositive rulings without oral argument.\nDue process requires not just fairness but the appearance of fairness. Offutt v. United States, 348\n\nU.S. 11, 14 (1954). In Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court\n\nheld that even without extrajudicial bias, recusal is required where judicial conduct creates \u201ca\n\ndeep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.\u201d That threshold\n\nhas been met here.\n\n IV. DEFENDANT\u2019S ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF\u2019S COUNSEL HIGHLIGHTS THE\n NEED FOR RECUSAL\n Rather than rebutting Plaintiff\u2019s evidence, Defendant spends much of its response\n\nimpugning Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2014accusing counseling of improperly referencing sealed material,\n\nmischaracterizing rulings, and failing to attend hearings. These personal attacks reinforce, rather\n\nthan rebut, the need for recusal. No judge should rely on ad hominem arguments made by a party\n\nto avoid scrutiny of its own impartiality.\n\n V. THE RECORD ACROSS RELATED CASES SUPPORTS PLAINTIFF\u2019S CLAIMS\n\n Defendant downplays the significance of rulings in other Dow cases before this Court.\n\nBut the law recognizes that a pattern of outcomes can support an inference of bias. United States\n\nv. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 157 (5th Cir. 1995). In 100% of publicly available Dow discrimination\n\ncases, this Court has granted summary judgment in full or part in Dow\u2019s favor. In contrast, the\n\nCourt has never sanctioned Dow for discovery misconduct\u2014while repeatedly sanctioning\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s counsel, even when Defendant ignored court orders or presented perjured testimony.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n Whether viewed under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 455(a) or \u00a7 455(b)(5), the appearance of bias is\n\nundeniable. Defendant\u2019s opposition confirms that the Court\u2019s impartiality is reasonably in\n\n\n 5\n\fCase\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM\n 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 27-4,\n 151, PageID.4685\n PageID.646 Filed\n Filed02/27/26\n 05/27/25 Page\n Page86ofof23\n 6\n\n\n\n\nquestion. It is understandable why Dow would want to maintain the status quo, because it only\n\nhelps them to continue to not follow the rules of discovery. To preserve public confidence in the\n\njudiciary and ensure fairness to this Plaintiff and others, recusal is both appropriate and\n\nnecessary.\n\n WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant her Motion for\n\nRecusal and reassign this matter to a different District Judge.\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\nDated: May 27, 2025 CARLA D. AIKENS, P.L.C.\n\n\n /s/_Carla D. Aikens_______\n Carla D. Aikens (P69530)\n 615 Griswold St., Ste. 709\n Detroit, MI 48226\n Tel: (844) 835-2993\n Fax: (877) 454-1680\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon all\n\nparties to the above cause to each of the attorneys of record herein on May 27, 2025 by:\n\n /s/ Mykelin Izeluk\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase\nCase1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECFNo.\n No.151-1,\n 27-4, PageID.647\n PageID.4686Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page9 of\n 1 of\n 238\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-1,\n 27-4, PageID.648\n PageID.4687Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 102ofof23\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-1,\n 27-4, PageID.649\n PageID.4688Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 113ofof23\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-1,\n 27-4, PageID.650\n PageID.4689Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 124ofof23\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-1,\n 27-4, PageID.651\n PageID.4690Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 135ofof23\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-1,\n 27-4, PageID.652\n PageID.4691Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 146ofof23\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-1,\n 27-4, PageID.653\n PageID.4692Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 157ofof23\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-1,\n 27-4, PageID.654\n PageID.4693Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 168ofof23\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-2,\n 27-4, PageID.655\n PageID.4694Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 171ofof23\n 7\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-2,\n 27-4, PageID.656\n PageID.4695Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 182ofof23\n 7\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-2,\n 27-4, PageID.657\n PageID.4696Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 193ofof23\n 7\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-2,\n 27-4, PageID.658\n PageID.4697Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 204ofof23\n 7\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-2,\n 27-4, PageID.659\n PageID.4698Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 215ofof23\n 7\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-2,\n 27-4, PageID.660\n PageID.4699Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 226ofof23\n 7\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 151-2,\n 27-4, PageID.661\n PageID.4700Filed\n Filed\n 02/27/26\n 05/27/25Page\n Page\n 237ofof23\n 7\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:24.307101-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"097014746851","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525732/","id":479525732,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/27/5/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:11.508582-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T03:32:59.430664-07:00","sha1":"0b0890f5ca0193d8bb8303225301a443d0ae4542","page_count":5,"file_size":274583,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-5, PageID.662 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit C\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 164,\n 27-5,PageID.4921\n PageID.663 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 06/30/25 Page\n Page 21 of\n of 54\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n NORTHERN DIVISION\n\n\n Honorable Thomas L. Ludington\nIn re: United States District Judge\n\nJones v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-11814 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2023);\nWalker v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12219 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2024);\nWilliams v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12220 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2024);\nBaston v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12411 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 13, 2024);\nJackson v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12459 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 19, 2024);\nBledson v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12912 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2024);\nBiggins v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12969 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2024);\nSantos v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-13012 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2024);\nYu v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-11478 (E.D. Mich. May 19, 2025)\n_________________________________________________________________/\n\n OPINION AND ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING ORDERS, AND DENYING\n MOTIONS TO ADJOURN OR EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDERS AS MOOT\n\n From July 2023 through May 2025, the following nine cases were initiated by Attorney\n\nCarla Aikens on behalf of separate plaintiffs against defendant Dow Chemical Corporation:\n\n \u2022 Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-11814 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2023);\n \u2022 Walker v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12219 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2024);\n \u2022 Williams v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12220 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2024);\n \u2022 Baston v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12411 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 13, 2024);\n \u2022 Jackson v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12459 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 19, 2024);\n \u2022 Bledson v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12912 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2024);\n \u2022 Biggins v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12969 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2024);\n \u2022 Santos v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-13012 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2024);\n \u2022 Yu v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-11478 (E.D. Mich. May 19, 2025)\n\n All nine cases have been assigned to the undersigned. 1 Jones, as the first case filed, has\n\n\n\n\n1\n Four additional cases against Defendant Dow Chemical Corporation were initiated during the\nsame time frame but were assigned to the Southern Division. See Walker v. Dow Chemical Co.,\nCase No. 1:24-cv-12730 (E.D. Mich.); West v. Rohm and Haas Chemical LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-\n12829 (E.D. Mich.); Lewis v. Dow Chemical Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12911 (E.D. Mich.); Ivey v.\nDow Chemical Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12981 (E.D. Mich.).\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 164,\n 27-5,PageID.4922\n PageID.664 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 06/30/25 Page\n Page 32 of\n of 54\n\n\n\n\nlargely been a bellwether. And that case has been dominated by discovery disputes. See, e.g., Jones\n\nv. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-CV-11814, 2024 WL 5004323 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2024); Jones v.\n\nDow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-CV-11814, 2025 WL 1261107 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2025); Jones v. Dow\n\nChem. Co., No. 1:23-CV-11814, 2025 WL 85734 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2025), adopted, No. 1:23-\n\nCV-11814, 2025 WL 1326721 (E.D. Mich. May 7, 2025); Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-CV-\n\n11814, 2025 WL 1326721 (E.D. Mich. May 7, 2025); Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-CV-\n\n11814, 2025 WL 1262408 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2025); Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-CV-\n\n11814, 2025 WL 1444428 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2025); Jones v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:23-CV-\n\n11814, 2024 WL 5710490 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 27, 2024).\n\n As these discovery disputes were resolved, plaintiff Sushma Jones filed a declaration\u2014\n\nsigned by her attorney, Carla Aikens\u2014on May 2, 2025, contending that the undersigned was\n\nbiased in favor of defendant Dow. Jones, ECF No. 140. Six days later, plaintiff Sushma Jones\u2014\n\nthrough Attorney Aikens\u2014filed a motion seeking the undersigned\u2019s recusal in her case. Jones,\n\nECF No. 143. Generally, Ms. Jones seeks the undersigned\u2019s recusal because my father\u2014who\n\npassed away in 2010\u2014was President of the Dow Corning Corporation over 35 years ago. 2 See id.\n\nat PageID.4404. Ms. Jones also contends that the undersigned is biased in favor of Dow Chemical\n\nbecause I attended Herbert Henry Dow High School\u2014a public high school in Midland,\n\nMichigan\u2014over 50 years ago. Id. at PageID.4406; see also Jones ECF No. 141 at PageID.4381.\n\nImportantly, on May 29, 2025, plaintiff Sushma Jones filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in\n\n\n\n2\n Dow Corning Corporation was a historic joint venture between Dow Chemical Company and\nCorning Glass Works (now known as Corning, Inc.). See Timeline, DOW\nhttps://corporate.dow.com/en-us/about-dow/company/history/timeline.html#tabs-708e4faf43-\nitem-bf164f4d6a-tab (last visited June 26, 2025). In 2016, the Dow Chemical Company purchased\nCorning\u2019s interest in the joint venture, forming a new wholly owned subsidiary: \u201cDow Silicones\nCorporation.\u201d See In re Settlement Facility Dow Corning Tr., 760 F. App\u2019x 406, 407 n.l (6th Cir.\n2019).\n\n\n -2-\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 164,\n 27-5,PageID.4923\n PageID.665 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 06/30/25 Page\n Page 43 of\n of 54\n\n\n\n\nthe Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an order directing the undersigned\u2019s recusal. See In re\n\nSushma Jones, Case No. 25-1486 (6th Cir. May 29, 2025).\n\n But Ms. Jones is not the only plaintiff represented by Attorney Aikens to have sought the\n\nundersigned\u2019s recusal. On May 7, 2025\u2014five days after Ms. Jones filed a similar declaration in\n\nher case against Dow\u2014Mr. Charles Baston filed a declaration in his case asserting that the\n\nundersigned is biased in favor of Dow. See Baston ECF No. 40. Like Ms. Jones, Mr. Baston\n\nsuggests the undersigned is biased because of his deceased father\u2019s former employer. Id. at\n\nPageID.528 (\u201cI know that the judge is the son of the former CEO of Dow . . . so the judge has to\n\nbe biased toward them if Dow fed his family as a child.\u201d). On May 8, 2025\u2014the same day Ms.\n\nJones filed a motion for recusal\u2014Mr. Baston did the same. Baston ECF No. 41.\n\n If Ms. Jones and Mr. Baston are correct that the undersigned\u2019s deceased father\u2019s former\n\nemployment and the name of the undersigned\u2019s high school warrant recusal under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n455, the undersigned would need to recuse himself on each of the nine cases listed above, and\n\nseemingly all current and future cases involving Dow Chemical Company, or any of its\n\nsubsidiaries. This issue is currently pending in the Sixth Circuit. If the Sixth Circuit does not order\n\nthe undersigned\u2019s recusal, the undersigned will proceed by resolving the pending motions for\n\nrecusal in Baston and Jones. It would be improper to decide any other pending motion in Jones,\n\nBaston, or any of the other seven discrimination cases against Dow, until after the recusal issue\n\nhas been resolved. See, e.g., Honorable Ord. of Kentucky Colonels, Inc. v. Kentucky Colonels Int'l,\n\nNo. 3:20-CV-132-RGJ, 2025 WL 1117428, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2025) (noting motions for\n\nrecusal \u201cpresumably impact[] all other\u201d pending motions and should accordingly be \u201caddresse[d]\n\n. . . first\u201d); Berryman v. Artis, No. 2:23-CV-12339, 2025 WL 415729, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Mich. Jan.\n\n2, 2025) (\u201cBecause determination of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion for Recusal has bearing on the Court's\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\fCase\nCase 1:23-cv-11814-TLL-PTM\n 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF\n ECF No.\n No. 164,\n 27-5,PageID.4924\n PageID.666 Filed\n Filed 02/27/26\n 06/30/25 Page\n Page 54 of\n of 54\n\n\n\n\nability to rule on the remaining motions, the Court will address it first.\u201d).\n\n Yet deadlines in the nine above-captioned cases are quickly approaching. So, in the\n\ninterests of justice and fairness to the Parties, the scheduling orders in all nine cases will be vacated.\n\nIf the Sixth Circuit does not order recusal, and the undersigned subsequently concludes recusal is\n\nnot warranted, new scheduling orders will be entered in each of the nine cases.\n\n Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the operative scheduling orders in the above-captioned\n\ncases are VACATED. If the Sixth Circuit does not order recusal, see In re Sushma Jones, Case\n\nNo. 25-1486 (6th Cir. May 29, 2025), and the undersigned subsequently concludes recusal is not\n\nwarranted, see Jones ECF No. 143; Baston ECF No. 41, new scheduling orders will be issued.\n\n Further, it is ORDERED that, in Williams v. Dow Chem. Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-12220\n\n(E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2024), Defendant and Plaintiffs\u2019 motions to adjourn the operative scheduling\n\norder, ECF Nos. 24; 25; 27, are DENIED AS MOOT.\n\n This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned cases.\n\n Dated: June 30, 2025 s/Thomas L. Ludington\n THOMAS L. LUDINGTON\n United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n -4-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:25.080379-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"097014746852","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479525733/","id":479525733,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71232462/27/6/lin-v-dow-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-18T05:19:11.519182-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T03:33:16.102874-07:00","sha1":"b2a56298c0e8eae60904ae05ef2790f564ae1434","page_count":10,"file_size":338268,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.388145/gov.uscourts.mied.388145.27.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM ECF No. 27-6, PageID.667 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit D\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.668\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 1 Page 2 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n RECEIVED\n 05/28/2025\n In re: Sushma Jones, Case No. KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk\n Petitioner.\n\n\n_____________________________________________________________________________/\n\n PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT\n COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, NORTHERN DIVISION\n\n\n\n I. RELIEF REQUESTED\n\n Petitioner Sushma Jones respectfully petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing\n\nthe Honorable Thomas L. Ludington, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of\n\nMichigan, to disqualify himself from presiding over Jones v. The Dow Chemical Company, Case\n\nNo. 1:23-cv-11814, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 144. Petitioner submitted a timely and legally\n\nsufficient declaration alleging personal bias and prejudice, yet Judge Ludington has refused to\n\nrecuse and continues issuing substantive rulings after the declaration was filed. Mandamus is\n\nrequired to stop ongoing violations of the statute and to preserve Petitioner\u2019s right to an impartial\n\ntribunal.\n\n II. JURISDICTION\n\n This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1651(a) and\n\nFederal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21, which expressly governs petitions for writs of mandamus\n\ndirected to a lower court. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a) authorizes this Court to 'issue\n\nall writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction,' including relief compelling compliance\n\nwith mandatory judicial disqualification under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 144.\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.669\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 2 Page 3 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\n The Sixth Circuit has consistently held that mandamus is the proper vehicle to rectify a\n\ndistrict judge\u2019s refusal to recuse where, as here, a timely and sufficient affidavit of bias has been\n\nfiled. See In re Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 919 F.2d 1136, 1143 (6th Cir. 1990) (granting mandamus\n\nunder FRAP 21 where recusal was 'not a matter of discretion, but of statutory command'). This\n\npetition complies fully with FRAP 21\u2019s requirements, including the submission of supporting\n\nexhibits and proof of service, and satisfies the substantive mandamus standard articulated in\n\nCheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380\u201381 (2004).\n\n III. ISSUE PRESENTED\n Whether Judge Ludington may lawfully continue presiding over a case after a party filed a\n\ntimely, facially sufficient affidavit of bias under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 144, which mandates that the judge\n\n\u201cshall proceed no further.\u201d\n\n IV. LEGAL STANDARD\n\n To obtain mandamus, the petitioner must show: (1) the absence of another adequate means\n\nto attain relief; an appeal after final judgment cannot cure the structural harm of presiding by a\n\nbiased judge. See In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 786 (3d Cir. 1992); (2) a clear and\n\nindisputable right to the writ; when a judge is disqualified under the statute (28 U.S.C. \u00a7 144), the\n\nlanguage is mandatory: \u201cthe judge shall proceed no further\u201d and leaves no room for discretion. See\n\nBerger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 36 (1921); (3) that the writ is appropriate under the\n\ncircumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380\u201381 (2004).\n\n Under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 144, \u201cwhenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and\n\nfiles a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a\n\npersonal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall\n\nproceed no further therein.\u201d The statute requires disqualification where the affidavit alleges facts\n\n 2\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.670\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 3 Page 4 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\nthat would lead a reasonable person to question the judge\u2019s impartiality. See United States v.\n\nBalistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1199\u20131200 (7th Cir. 1985) (\u201cWe think that this language imposes a duty\n\non the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed).\n\n V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n Petitioner Sushma Jones filed suit in July 2023 alleging race and gender discrimination,\n\nretaliation, and hostile work environment. The case was assigned to Judge Thomas L. Ludington.\n\nOn May 2, 2025, as amended on May 3, 2025, Petitioner submitted a declaration under 28 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 144, detailing concern that Judge Ludington\u2019s familial relationship \u2013 specifically, that his father\n\nwas the Chairman and CEO of Dow. Dow-affiliated company is now fully owned by The Dow\n\nChemical Company. Dow\u2019s own historical timeline confirms this acquisition (Exhibit A), and its\n\ncorporate literature celebrates John Ludington\u2019s legacy, naming a building after him as a model\n\nfor Dow\u2019s ethical standards (Exhibit B; PageID.4718, PageID.4719). Under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n455(b)(5)(i), recusal is mandatory when a judge\u2019s third-degree relative was an officer of a party a\n\nfact Dow\u2019s opposition concedes but dismisses as 'attenuated,' despite Dow Corning\u2019s current status\n\nas a wholly owned subsidiary.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s due process rights have been continually violated by not having an impartial\n\ntribunal deciding this matter \u2013 which was further compounded by not ruling on objections Plaintiff\n\nfiled, never penalizing Dow for any reason, canceling the hearing on Defendant\u2019s motion for\n\nsummary judgment and stating the same would be ruled upon based on the pleadings just days\n\nafter Plaintiff filed her declaration of bias, and continuing to rule on objections that have been\n\npending for many months.\n\n Another plaintiff \u2013 Ayanna Walker \u2013 had previously filed a motion for recusal of the\n\nMagistrate Judge on April 13, 2025. (Exhibit C). However, the Magistrate Judge has not ruled on\n\n 3\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.671\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 4 Page 5 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\nthe motion. Thereafter, the District Court upheld all of the Magistrate Judge\u2019s orders, ignoring that\n\nthere is a question regarding her impartiality, which calls into question the impartiality of the\n\nDistrict Court.\n\n On May 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a declaration of bias under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 144, detailing Judge\n\nLudington\u2019s familial ties to Dow and a pattern of unequal treatment, including one-sided sanctions,\n\nignored perjury, and retaliatory rulings after the filing (Exhibit D \u00b6\u00b6 5, 22, 31). A few days later,\n\nthe District Court canceled the hearing on the Defendant\u2019s Motion for Summary Judgment, stating\n\nthat it would rule on the pleadings, which had the appearance of being retaliation for filing the\n\ndeclaration (Exhibit E). A few days after that, the District Court began a series of rulings on\n\nobjections that were not ruled upon for many months until after summary judgment was pending.\n\nIt is unclear what the purpose is of ruling on the motions at this juncture, as there was clearly no\n\nintent to address them during the time period of discovery so Plaintiff could try to obtain\n\ninformation to support her claims. (Exhibit F) (Exhibit G).\n\n The District Court then approved yet another order for sanctions against Plaintiff and her\n\ncounsel, this time for requesting that discovery be done during the discovery period and requesting\n\nthat it be extended. Discovery was eventually extended, but there was no mandate for Defendant\n\nto do discovery during the discovery period, and Plaintiff was deprived of all opportunity to\n\nconduct any follow-up discovery.\n\n On May 20, 2025, Judge Ludington overruled objections regarding the perjury of\n\nDefendant\u2019s witnesses, stating definitively that the witnesses \u2013 Jessica Bruske and Jason Ellis \u2013\n\ndefinitively did not perjure themselves, and stating that the answers were due to memory loss.\n\n(Exhibit H, PageID.4640). This ruling came despite the fact that the answers provided were not\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t remember\u201d but \u201cno.\u201d:\n\n 4\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.672\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 5 Page 6 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\n 12 Had you dealt with any types of racial\n 13\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 discrimination complaints against anybody since\n 14\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 you've been in that role?\n 15\u00b7 A.\u00b7 \u00b7 No.\n 16\u00b7 Q.\u00b7 \u00b7 You're not aware of any or just didn't handle them\n 17\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 directly?\n 18\u00b7 A.\u00b7 \u00b7 Did not handle them directly.1\n \u2026..\n 9 And I'm just\n 10\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 asking you, have you all ever had -- are you aware\n 11\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 of any -- other than watching on the news, that's\n 12\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 the only way you know there's been racial -- claims\n 13\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 of racial discrimination in Dow; is that correct?\n 14\u00b7 A.\u00b7 \u00b7 Correct.2\n \u2026\n 14 Have you ever taken\n 15\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 part in an OEC investigation, regardless of whether\n 16\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 it was for race or otherwise, related to Ms. Walker\n 17\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 or Mr. Baston?\n 18\u00b7 A.\u00b7 \u00b7 No.3\n\n\n This testimony is false, and much of it had happened as recently as a few months before\n\nMs. Bruske was deposed. The failure to seriously regard whether perjury happened only further\n\ncauses Plaintiff to doubt that these proceedings will be fair.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Exhibit I (Bruske Dep. At 82:12-180)\n2\n Exhibit I (Bruske Dep. At 83:9-14)\n3\n Exhibit I (Bruske Dep. At 254:14-18)\n 5\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.673\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 6 Page 7 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\n What Ms. Bruske did say she did not know as whether calling a Black person a formerly\n\nenslaved Black person is a racial comment:\n\n 19 Do you understand that calling somebody a\n 20\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 formerly enslaved person and who happens to be\n 21\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 African-American is a racial comment?\n 22\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 MR. BARDELLI:\u00b7 Object to form.\n 23\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 Foundation.\u00b7 Calls for speculation.\u00b7 Lacks\n 24\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 foundation.\n 25\u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 THE WITNESS:\u00b7 I don\u2019t know.4\n\n\n Judge Ludington stated: \u201cAnd even if Bruske intentionally provided false testimony\u2014she\n\ndidn\u2019t\u2026,\u201d (Exhibit H, PageID.4640) which is not something any person could ever assess based\n\nupon reading a transcript. Judge Ludington further stated that Defendant could not be held\n\nresponsible for Bruske\u2019s actions, though on what basis this is so was not explained. Defendant\u2019s\n\ncounsel provided the documents that substantiated that the testimony was indeed false. These\n\ndocuments further contradict Bruske\u2019s sworn testimony. Yet Judge Ludington dismissed\n\nPetitioner\u2019s motion to show cause, citing the Magistrate Judge\u2019s comment that there was \u201cnot even\n\nan indicia\u201d that her statements constituted perjury. See Order Overruling Plaintiff\u2019s Objections and\n\nAdopting Magistrate\u2019s Order, (Exhibit H, PageID.4633). The court made no effort to reconcile\n\nthe content of the emails with Bruske\u2019s deposition or to acknowledge that \u201cI don\u2019t remember\u201d was\n\nnot what she actually said\u2014she repeatedly denied any such participation.\n\n Meanwhile, Judge Ludington continues to supervise summary judgment, cancel hearings\n\nand has invited supplemental briefing on contempt, even as his impartiality remains in question.\n\n\n\n4\n Exhibit I (Bruske Dep. At 192:19-25)\n 6\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.674\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 7 Page 8 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\n(Exhibit J) (Exhibit K). Plaintiff further attaches the most recent orders, including one in which\n\nthe Court stated that Plaintiff had an obligation to identify which portions of a transcript were not\n\nconfidential, rather than the actual legal standard, which is that it is entity seeking protection that\n\nhas an obligation to demonstrate why its designations are entitled to protection. (Exhibit H).\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s motion to recuse Judge Ludington, under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 455, further elucidates that Judge\n\nLudington has granted summary judgment on 100% of the discrimination claims against Dow that\n\nhave ever proceeded to that point (Exhibit L).\n\n VI. ARGUMENT\n Under \u00a7 144, Judge Ludington was required to step aside once Petitioner filed a timely and\n\nlegally sufficient affidavit. The standard is objective: would a reasonable person, knowing the facts\n\nalleged, question the judge\u2019s impartiality? See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486\n\nU.S. 847, 860 (1988); Union Carbide Corp. v. U.S. Cutting Serv., Inc., 782 F.2d 710, 716 (7th Cir.\n\n1986).\n\n The facts alleged in Petitioner\u2019s affidavit\u2014being the son of the former Chairman and CEO\n\nof Dow Corning, sanction threats only against Plaintiff of her counsel while excusing rule\n\nviolations by Dow and its counsel, characterizing the mental state of individuals associated with\n\nDefendant to only be positive, and a refusal to address clear contradictions in the record\u2014easily\n\nmeet that standard. Judge Ludington\u2019s response, however, has been to disregard the declaration\n\nentirely and continue issuing orders, canceling hearings, and making rulings on witness credibility\n\nand the propriety of internal Dow records. These rulings directly prejudice Plaintiff and her right\n\nto due process and undermine confidence in the court\u2019s neutrality.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.675\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 8 Page 9 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\n The statute is explicit: once a sufficient affidavit is filed, \u201cthe judge shall proceed no\n\nfurther.\u201d See Berger, 255 U.S. at 36. A judge has no discretion to evaluate the truth of the\n\nallegations. See Balistrieri, 779 F.2d at 1200\u201301.\n\n Judge Ludington has done exactly what the statute forbids. Rather than refer the matter or\n\nstep aside, he has continued overseeing discovery, ruling on objections, upholding prior sanctions,\n\nand overseeing dispositive motions. This is not a harmless error. It is a continuing violation of law\n\nthat affects the integrity of the proceedings and deprives Petitioner of the right to a neutral arbiter.\n\n There is no other remedy. Appeal after final judgment cannot cure the damage caused by a\n\njudge\u2019s refusal to disqualify when required. See In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 786\n\n(3d Cir. 1992) (\u201cBias or the appearance of bias infects all rulings and taints the entire proceeding.\u201d).\n\nThe only mechanism to prevent that harm is mandamus.\n\n VII. CONCLUSION\n\n Petitioner submits that Judge Ludington is statutorily disqualified under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 144,\n\nbecause his father was the Chairman and CEO of Defendant, and his demonstrated pattern of\n\ndismissing 100% of the discrimination claims brought against Dow since he has been on the federal\n\nbench reflects the bias that any reasonable person would expect him to have under the\n\ncircumstances. His refusal to recuse has caused to Petitioner\u2019s right to a fair proceeding. Continued\n\nrulings\u2014particularly on matters of sanctions, summary judgment, and contempt\u2014are\n\nunauthorized and unlawful.\n\n Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering Judge\n\nLudington to recuse himself and to have the case reassigned to another judge in accordance with\n\nFederal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21 and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 144.\n\n\n 8\n\f Case: 25-1486 Document:\nCase 1:25-cv-12744-JEL-PTM 1-2 PageID.676\n ECF No. 27-6, Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 9Page 10 of 10\n Filed 02/27/26\n\n\n\n\n Dated: May 28, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n Carla D. Aikens (P69530)\n Carla D. Aikens, PLC\n 615 Griswold St., Suite 709\n Detroit, MI 48226\n (844) 835-2993\n carla@aikenslawfirm.com\n Attorneys for Petitioner\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to\n the above cause to each of the attorneys of record herein at their respective addresses as directed\n on the pleadings on May 28, 2025, by:\n /s/ Mykelin Izeluk\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:19:27.254359-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"097014746853","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-27T13:59:14.484281-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-15T07:05:12.737297-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-27","time_filed":"16:35:15","entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":108,"description":"RESPONSE to 25 MOTION to Stay Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Action filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E) (Lauderbach, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/27/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71232462&page_size=40"}