that a ‘judge is not a material witness where there are other available witnesses who can give the same testimony.’ ” McGuire v. Warner, No. 05-40185, 2009 WL 3756865 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 9, 2009). “If other witnesses or documents are known, then the testimony of the judge is unnecessary.” Cheeves v. S. Clays, Inc., 797 F.Supp. 1570, 1582-83 (M.D.Ga.1992); see also In re O’Farrell, 498 B.R. 873, 905-06 (Bankr.S.D.Ind.2013) (“There were ... several others present at the hearing, all of whom can presumably testify as to what occurred .... Debtors have otherwise stated no compelling reason to believe that the Court will be a material witness in the Adversary Proceeding and, for that reason, it rejects their argument that recusal is required pursu h Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164 (C.D.Cal.1998) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Smith, 154 F.R.D. 661 (N.D.Tex.1994)
recognizing a federal mediation privilege recognizing a federal psychotherapy privilege recognizing privilege recognizing federal common law privilege for psychotherapistpatient communications but holding that litigant waived privilege by raising issue as to her psychological state recognizing privilege under federal rules