In Kolon Industries Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that recusals under 28 U.S.C. § 445(b) include an implied timeliness requirement. Although the statute itself is silent on the matter, the Fourth Circuit joined its sister circuits in reading into the statute a timeliness requirement consistent with its purpose of promoting public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process (No. 12-1587, (4th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014)).

E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. (DuPont) sued Kolon Industries (Kolon) for stealing trade secrets regarding para-aramid synthetic fiber in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Kolon brought counterclaims under the Sherman Act, alleging that DuPont monopolized the para-aramid fiber market by requiring its customers to sign multi-year supply agreements which prevented competitors from entering the market. DuPont prevailed in the trade secrets case following a jury trial, and the court severed the two claims. Kolon filed motions to recuse the district court judge under 28 U.S.C. § 445(b) and compel discovery.

The judge had worked for the law firm McGuireWoods, which represented DuPont in patent lawsuits in the 1980s. McGuireWoods was also DuPont's counsel in the instant case. After the clerk of the court warned of the possible conflict, the judge asked that the parties file a motion if they disagreed with his belief that recusal was unnecessary. Neither party did at the time. During discovery, Kolon learned more about the judge's involvement in the earlier litigation. However, it did not file a recusal motion based on this additional information until more than a year after learning the details of the judge's involvement, and the court denied the recusal motion as untimely. It also denied the motion to compel discovery, finding the discovery request unduly burdensome, and granted summary judgment to DuPont on the Sherman Act claims. Kolon appealed.

Although 28 U.S.C. § 445(b) does not contain a timeliness provision, the Fourth Circuit joined the US Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits in finding a judicially implied requirement for the timely filing of recusal motions. The legislative goal of the recusal statute is to ensure that the public has confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. The timeliness requirement prevents a party from using the recusal statute for strategic purposes rather than as a mechanism for the court to meet its ethical obligations. It also promotes efficiency by eliminating the potential for waste and delay. The court held that Kolon should have raised the disqualification issue immediately after learning of the potential conflict.

The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the discovery motion and granting of summary judgment.