Chief Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez of Houston has ordered his former colleague, ex-bankruptcy Judge David Jones, and law firm Jackson Walker to appear in his court this Wednesday to explain why they apparently went behind his back and against his prior order to conduct a private interview regarding facts involving the judge’s secret romantic relationship with former Jackson Walker partner Elizabeth Freeman.
Chief Judge Rodriguez issued a show-case order Monday stating that the U.S. Trustee’s Office has informed the court that such an interview recently took place and demanded that Judge Jones and lawyers for Jackson Walker appear Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. to explain their reasons and face possible sanctions.
“Jackson Walker, its counsel and David R. Jones and his counsel must be prepared to explain to this court whether in fact the allegations raised in the U.S. Trustee’s notice regarding Jones’s interview by Jackson Walker’s counsel did in fact occur and if so explain to this court the details of such interview,” the chief judge wrote in a blistering three-page order.
Chief Judge Rodriguez is overseeing the U.S. Trustee’s claims that Jackson Walker should be forced to fork over about $13 million in legal fees it earned in corporate bankruptcy cases it handled before Judge Jones between 2020 and 2023 when Freeman worked with the firm.
In his order, Chief Judge Rodriguez said he wants to know “why such an interview was conducted, who caused the interview to occur, when it occurred, where it occurred, how long it lasted, the specific questions asked and answers received, whether it was recorded or otherwise documented, whether any documents were exchanged, whether the U.S. Trustee or any other party-in-interest were invited to attend.”
Lawyers for both Jackson Walker and Judge Jones filed “emergency motions” late Monday that appear to be under seal and not accessible to the public that include information for Chief Judge Rodriguez to consider. Rusty Hardin & Associates and Norton Rose Fulbright are representing Jackson Walker, while Quinn Emanuel is representing Judge Jones.
The chief judge said he also wants to know “why Jackson Walker, its counsel, David R. Jones and his counsel did not first seek” permission of the court “to conduct such an interview” when he, the chief judge, had made it clear that he was concerned about the legality of such an interview during a hearing in July.
“Despite this court’s admonishment” at a July 16 hearing “that no parties may obtain testimony regarding any previously listed deposition topic with former Judge Jones until the court issued its determination” on what questions can be asked and answered, “both counsel to former Judge Jones and counsel for Jackson Walker confirmed to the U.S. Trustee that former Judge Jones recently appeared for an interview conducted by Jackson Walker’s counsel,“ Chief Judge Rodriguez wrote in his order.
“On July 29, 2024, counsel for former Judge Jones also offered the U.S. Trustee a similar ‘off the record’ interview,” the chief judge wrote.
“Failure by any person to appear in person may be cause for this court to issue further orders including the issuance of a bench warrant for their arrest,” Chief Judge Rodriguez wrote.
The chief judge also reminded the parties that he holds “the exclusive authority … to authorize and set limits regarding the nature of the testimony to ensure the regulations are satisfied, which includes determining if the requested testimony is official in nature.”
“It is the exclusive authority of the determining officer to authorize and set limits regarding the nature of the testimony to ensure the regulations are satisfied, which includes determining if the requested testimony is official in nature,” the chief judge wrote.
In addition, lawyers for the plan administrator in the 2020 JC Penney bankruptcy filed a brief Monday stating that it wants Chief Judge Rodriguez’s approval to issue subpoenas to AT&T and T-Mobile for the phone records of former Judge Jones from February 2020 to October 2023.
On Aug. 1, Chief Judge Rodriguez issued a separate show-cause order demanding that the JC Penney plan administrator provide “the relevance of the records sought to the legal proceedings, why the records sought, or the information contained therein, are not readily available from other sources or by other means, and why the information sought is not subject to the mental process privilege.”
In the brief filed Monday, Stephen Lemmon argued that “the judicial policy does not apply to the subpoenas.”
A partner at Austin’s Streusand, Landon, Ozburn & Lemmon, Lemmon said the subpoenas are for the two wireless phone companies, not for any information held by the federal judiciary.
Lemmon said his client “seeks transaction data, which includes logs of telephone calls and text messages sent and received by Jones” but not the substance of those calls and text messages.
“The nature and relevance of the information sought was set out in the subpoenas and the relevance is evident on its face,” Lemmon wrote. “There is an unsubstantiated rumor that Jones and counsel appearing before him would exchange texts, including during ongoing hearings. If true, this is something the court and all parties in interest should know. The plan administrator, as a fiduciary to the parties in interest in the JC Penney bankruptcy cases, has a duty to investigate whether or not Jones had improper ex parte communications regarding the sale process that may have adversely affected the creditors of the bankruptcy estate. If the rumor is not true, it is in everyone’s interest to put this issue to rest in an open and transparent manner.”