In an order filed in Nashville on Wednesday, Presiding Judge Don R. Ash of the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary has set June 2, 3, and 4 as dates for the trial of Cocke County General Sessions Judge John Bell.

The trial will be held in Newport and will be open to the public. The focus of the hearing will be Judge Bell's handling of a civil case in his court beginning in 2007.

Wednesday's order is the first formal setting of a trial date for the latest complaint filed against Judge Bell, although the document itself states that the trial is being continued from February 17 through 19 until the June dates.

According to Judge Ash's order, Judge Bell has agreed to waive his right to have a trial date set within 60 days of his filing a formal answer to the charges. Defense attorney Gordon Ball, citing a health problem, has also agreed to schedule the matter in June.

Judge Ash will also hear pre-trial motions in the case in Murfreesboro on February 10.

"During [a] conference call [on January 20], Judge Ash was made aware of the fact that there would be a number of motions that would need to be filed by each of the respective parties and heard by Judge Ash prior to trial," according to Wednesday's order. "Some of these motions would require the consideration of transcripts of depositions taken up to this date. In addition, it was brought to the attention of the court by Mr. Ball that he has a medical problem and he would ask for a continuance of the trial setting in this case."

Also on Wednesday, Court of the Judiciary Disciplinary Counsel Joseph Daniel filed a motion to quash the scheduled taking of his deposition by defense attorneys next month. The motion characterizes the information requested in the deposition as "burdensome," "excessive," and "nothing more than a fishing expedition" to get information about why the complaint was filed against Judge Bell.

According to the complaint against Judge Bell filed on October 13, 2009, the case began on August 9, 2007, when David J. Pleau, of Scotch Pine Way, Bybee, filed a civil case in Cocke County General Sessions Court against Merastar Insurance Company. Merastar was the insurance carrier which issued the uninsured motorist coverage on Pleau's vehicle.

The vehicle had reportedly been involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by Jo Ann Coleman apparently on December 29, 2006, although the civil complaint also lists the date of the accident as December 29, 2007.

After promising a decision within a week, Judge Bell is alleged to have taken about nine months to hand down a decision against Pleau. But, after Pleau filed a complaint with the court of the judiciary, Judge Bell reversed his initial decision and handed down a second opinion in favor of Pleau.

Daniel's complaint alleges that Judge Bell's reversal of his initial ruling in the case was in an effort to stop Pleau from pursuing his complaint against the judge. Judge Bell is also accused of recruiting Newport attorney Tom Testerman to encourage Pleau to drop his complaint.

Judge Bell's handling of the case is alleged to be in violation of canons of judicial ethics which require judges to dispose of all cases promptly, efficiently, and fairly; to "respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary"; and not to be "swayed by partisan interest, public clamor, or fear of criticism."

Attorney Ball filed a notice with the court indicating that he would take Daniel's deposition in the case on February 11 in Knoxville.

Daniel objects to the deposition being taken, citing "attorney/client privilege and 'work product' protection."

"The notice of deposition and attempt to obtain a deposition is on its face calculated to subject Disciplinary Counsel Daniel to annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" as defined under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, according to Daniel's motion.

"The notice seeks to require [Daniel] to bring with him 'any and all investigative files and materials regarding any investigation of John A. Bell and Tom Testerman.' Further, [Daniel] is [also] directed to bring an astonishing number of files and summaries of files maintained by the Court of the Judiciary extending as far back as January 1, 2003," the motion continues.

"Due to the sweeping breadth of the request/demand by John A. Bell the said Joseph S. Daniel is unable at this point to segregate what in his file, a file he maintains for the prosecution of this action, for purposes of asserting his rights.

"The proposed deposition is further unreasonable particularly given the nature of The Honorable John A. Bell's answer and responses to written discovery, and his conduct during his own deposition [on] January 19, 2010, to be the subject of yet another motion to compel to be filed within a time frame heretofore ordered by this court," Daniel's motion concludes.

The motion does not specify the "conduct" being raised against Judge Bell at his deposition, but he and his attorney continue to argue that Judge Bell has a fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination in the trial of the complaint.

In his first response to the formal charges, Judge Bell chose to exercise his fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination 45 times, citing the potential for criminal charges to be filed against him in the matter. He has also cited attorney/client privilege in refusing to respond to certain other questions.