She was simply preparing to decide what records the parties were entitled to examine.
But one executive saw her as an obstacle.
He believed that if she could be forced to withdraw from the case, the proceedings might be delayed long enough for the company to renegotiate its contracts and limit further scrutiny.
The plan was reckless.
Unlawful in several possible respects.
And based on an extraordinary misunderstanding of how judicial recusal worked.
But desperation had begun replacing judgment.
Forty-eight hours before the supermarket confrontation, three men met inside a corporate office.
One was the private security contractor's senior executive.
Another was a regional operations director.
The third was a former police supervisor who now worked as a consultant to the company.
They discussed the upcoming federal hearing.
The executive was angry.
He believed the company's attorneys had lost control of the situation.
He complained that the judge was demanding too much transparency.
The former supervisor looked toward a document containing her photograph and a summary of the case.
Then made a suggestion.
“What happens if she becomes personally involved in an incident with the department?”
The executive frowned.
“What kind of incident?”
The consultant leaned forward.
“One that makes it impossible for her to continue overseeing the case.”
The operations director looked uncomfortable.
“You can't just manufacture something involving a federal judge.”
The consultant smiled thinly.
“People get stopped every day.”
For several seconds, the room was silent.
Then the executive looked toward the photograph.
The judge was dressed in formal judicial robes.
Her expression was serious.
The consultant continued.
“She shops in Buckhead. We know her vehicle. We know the stores she visits.”
The operations director shook his head.
“This is insane.”
But the executive didn't dismiss the idea.
He asked what would happen if the judge was arrested during a retail-security incident.
The consultant explained that the arrest might create a conflict requiring her recusal from the pending matter.
He suggested that the resulting publicity could discredit the court's scrutiny of the department.
The executive considered the proposal.
He did not understand that a recusal would simply lead to reassignment to another judge, not the disappearance of the underlying case.
He also did not seem concerned about the consequences of causing an innocent person to be falsely accused.
He was focused on delay.
Control.
And protecting his company's contracts.
By the time the meeting ended, the operations director had been instructed to explore whether an existing retail-security alert could be used to generate a police response.