Judges – Recusal motion is denied again

Where the court previously denied the plaintiff’s recusal motion, and the reconsideration motion relied on evidence that was previously available, evidence that was not material or evidence that was not likely to produce a new outcome, it was denied.

Background

Moon Young Kim, proceeding pro se, asks this court to reconsider its September 2025 order denying Kim’s motion for recusal. She argues that the documents she recently obtained via FOIA requests to Defendant The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia mandate reconsideration and recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Standards

The “power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory judgments” under Rule 54(b) is “committed to the discretion of the district court.” In the Fourth Circuit, a district court “may revise an interlocutory order under the same circumstances in which it may depart from the law of the case: (1) a subsequent trial producing substantially different evidence; (2) a change in applicable law; or (3) clear error causing manifest injustice.”

Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration motions may be granted for new evidence not previously available to the movant only if, inter alia: (1) the evidence was not previously available to the party, (2) “the evidence is material,” and (3) “the evidence is such that is likely to produce a new outcome . . . or is such that would require the judgment to be amended.”

Analysis

Kim explains that she obtained new documents in late February following several FOIA requests. The proffered documents include: (1) a letter from former University President Ryan about the undersigned’s prior service at UVA from Sept. 22, 2021; (2) a Jan. 9, 2019, appointment letter from the Office of the Attorney General; (3) an article on the UVA website announcing the undersigned’s confirmation and (4) a UVA webpage featuring the biography of Barry Meeks, Interim University Counsel.

They also include: (5) a “FOIA Request 4590 exemption log” for July through October 2025 listing University Counsel’s Office files and communications; (6) a similar “FOIA Request 5037 exemption log”; (7) state court records from Kim’s Charlottesville Circuit Court FOIA proceedings and (8) FOIA-requested data from UVA’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights and Department of Systems and Information Engineering.

None of these documents constitute “substantially different evidence” justifying reconsideration under Rule 54(b), nor do they support a finding that the undersigned must be disqualified under § 455. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration denied.

Kim v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, Case No. 3:25-cv-00054, April 14, 2026. WDVA at Charlottesville (Yoon). VLW 026-3-174. 15 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-174
Virginia Lawyers Weekly