Case: 06-11246 Document: 00512584745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2014 United States Court of Appeals FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK TEL. 504-310-7655 6008.MAESTRIPLACE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 LYLEW. CAYCE CLERK OF COURT April 3, 2014 Mr. Daniel Tilli 11 02 Eaton 409 Bethlehem, PA 18018-0000 RE: Case No. 06-11206 Daniel Tilli v. Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation Dear Mr. Tilli: I have been contacted by Judge Thomas M. Reavley, who participated in this court's December 1 1, 2007 decision in the above-referenced case. During the time this case was pending, Judge Reavley's wife owned stock in Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, a party to this case. This circumstance would have required the judge's recusal under Canon 3C(l )( c) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Judge Reavley properly advised the Clerk's Office of this information and recused himself from participating in cases implicated by the stock ownership. Unfortunately, the Clerk's Office failed to properly note this recusal and the judge subsequently participated in this case. Under the procedure followed for this particular decision and order it is understandable how Judge Reavley would never be aware of the fact that Exxon was a party. When he learned of this on April 2, 2014, Judge Reavley directed that I notify the parties of the conflict and invite them to respond to the disclosure if they wish to do so. Advisory Opinion No. 71 ("Disqualification After Oral Argument"), issued by the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, provides the following guidance for addressing a disqualification that is not discovered until after a judge's participation in the case: [A] judge should disclose to the parties the facts bearing on disqualification as soon as those facts are learned, even though that may occur after entry of the decision. The parties may then determine what relief they may seek and a court (without the disqualified judge) will decide the legal consequence, if any, arising from the participation of the disqualified judge in the entered decision. In accordance with Advisory Opinion No. 71, you may respond to the judge's disclosure of a conflict in this case. Should you wish to respond, please file your response in the Clerk's Office -- -~ - --------- Case: 06-11246 Document: 00512584745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2014 by April 18, 2014. Any response will be considered by the court without participation by Judge Reavley. Sincerely, dif-iw f"'I 'l Lyle W. Cayce Clerk of Court Case: 06-11246 Document: 00512584745 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2014 United States Court of Appeals FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK TEL. 504-310-7655 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK OF COURT April 3, 2014 Mr. George W. Bramblett, Jr., Esq. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 RE:. Case No. 06-11206 Daniel Tilli v. Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation Dear Mr. Bramblett: I have been contacted by Judge Thomas M. Reavley, who participated in this court's December 11, 2007 decision in the above-referenced case. During the time this case was pending, Judge Reavley's wife owned stock in Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, a party to this case. This circumstance would have required the judge's recusal under Canon 3C( 1)( c) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Judge Reavley properly advised the Clerk's Office of this information and recused himself from participating in cases implicated by the stock ownership. Unfortunately, the Clerk's Office failed to properly note this recusal and the judge subsequently participated in this case. Under the procedure followed for this particular decision and order it is understandable how Judge Reavley would never be aware of the fact that Exxon was a party. When he learned of this on April 2, 2014, Judge Reavley directed that I notify the parties of the conflict and invite them to respond to the disclosure if they wish to do so. Advisory Opinion No. 71 ("Disqualification After Oral Argument"), issued by the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, provides the following guidance for addressing a disqualification that is not discovered until after a judge's participation in the case: [A] judge should disclose to the parties the facts bearing on disqualification as soon as those facts are learned, even though that may occur after entry of the decision. The parties may then determine what relief they may seek and a court (without the disqualified judge) will decide the legal consequence, if any, arising from the participation of the disqualified judge in the entered decision. In accordance with Advisory Opinion No. 71, you may respond to the judge's disclosure of a conflict in this case. Should you wish to respond, please file your response in the Clerk's Office Case: 06-11246 Document: 00512584745 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/03/2014 by April 18, 2014. Any response will be considered by the court without participation by Judge Reavley. Sincerely, dif 4J. a" Lyle W. Cayce Clerk of Court cc Victor Derrone Vital "1 Case: 06-11246 Document: 00512584745 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/03/2014 United States Court of Appeals FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK TEL. 504-310-7655 600S.MAESTRIPLACE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK OF COURT April 3, 2014 Ms. Melissa Jane Armstrong Baker Botts, L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 RE: Case No. 06-11206 Daniel Tilli v. Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation Dear Ms. Armstrong: I have been contacted by Judge Thomas M. Reavley, who participated in this court's December 11, 2007 decision in the above-referenced case. During the time this case was pending, Judge Reavley's wife owned stock in Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, a party to this case. This circumstance would have required the judge's recusal under Canon 3C( 1)( c) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Judge Reavley properly advised the Clerk's Office of this information and recused himself from participating in cases implicated by the stock ownership. Unfortunately, the Clerk's Office failed to properly note this recusal and the judge subsequently participated in this case. Under the procedure followed for this particular decision and order it is understandable how Judge Reavley would never be aware of the fact that Exxon was a party. When he learned of this on April 2, 2014, Judge Reavley directed that I notify the parties of the conflict and invite them to respond to the disclosure if they wish to do so. Advisory Opinion No. 71 ("Disqualification After Oral Argument"), issued by the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, provides the following guidance for addressing a disqualification that is not discovered until after a judge's participation in the case: [A] judge should disclose to the parties the facts bearing on disqualification as soon as those facts are learned, even though that may occur after entry of the decision. The parties may then determine what relief they may seek and a court (without the disqualified judge) will decide the legal consequence, if any, arising from the participation of the disqualified judge in the entered decision. In accordance with Advisory Opinion No. 71, you may respond to the judge's disclosure of a conflict in this case. Should you wish to respond, please file your response in the Clerk's Office Case: 06-11246 Document: 00512584745 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/03/2014 by April 18, 2014. Any response will be considered by the court without participation by Judge Reavley. Sincerely, j wlt 0. LyJ~W. Cayce 01 Clerk of Court cc Victor Derrone Vital CA__