familiar with the case, but beyond this litigants subject to the authority of the district court do not normally have any say as to the particular judge who acts for the court. Reassignment of civil and criminal cases within a district court occurs regularly, for numerous reasons related to administrative convenience or necessity, and a litigant has no vested right to a particular judge. Colon-Munoz, 292 F.3d at 22. The trial judge’s views about the reassignment of her cases, whatever their basis, is not relevant to the question whether Chief Judge Laffitte was competent and sufficiently familiar with the instant case to impose sentence. Accordingly, the motions to compel are denied. It is so ordered. 1 . Cf. In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, 1520 (11th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 904, 106 S.Ct. 3273,
holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that communications among judges related to official judicial business are protected by a qualified privilege recognizing qualified privilege for confidential presidential communications holding communications between corporate counsel and corporations employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice protected by attorneyclient privilege recognizing qualified privilege protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties