to § 455(b)(5)(iv).”); Stine v. Fetterhoff, 07-CV-02203-WYD-KLM, 2008 WL 885835 (D.Colo. Mar. 27, 2008) (“A judge is not a material witness where there are other available witnesses who can give the same testimony.”); Adrian, 588 F.Supp.2d at 220 (denying recu-sal motion where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the court would be a material witness given the presence of “numerous other individuals from both parties” during the settlement conversations). Here, Cristini’s lawyers and the Warren defendants’ lawyers all are able to furnish information about Arrowood’s settlement posturing. Finally, summoning mediators to give evidence about the parties’ discussions during settlement negotiations generally is disfavored. See NLRB v. Jos. Macaluso, Inc., 618 F.2d 51, 52 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension &
holding that even when the information is crucial to a litigants case reporters should be compelled to disclose their sources only after the litigant has shown that he has exhausted every reasonable alternative source of information holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted recognizing that there may be liability for mail fraud where defendant omits information it has duty to disclose holding that a federal mediator may not be compelled to disclose information communicated to him during private sessions holding that land dedicated for a public street may not be leased to a private entity for private use