In United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966), the trial judge commented on evidence, based on depositions and briefs which the parties had offered to him. According to the Supreme Court his "adverse attitude " reflected "his view that, if the facts were as the Government alleged, stringent relief was called for" (Grinnell at 583). The trial judge had advised the defendants in a pretrial conference to settle, explaining "you would do better to get together with the government rather than run the risk of what I would say from what I have seen. Let me just assure you of that" (id. at 581). The judge added: "There is no use in discussing it with me. I have read enough to know that if I have to decide this case on what I have seen from the government you will not be in a position at this stage to agree to it." (Id. at 581-582.) The Court declined to require recusal. (United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 US at 583.) The Court in Grinnell also noted that the trial judge in a court statement told the parties: "I have told you that, forced by you to look at pretrial submission, my views are more extreme than those of the government; and I have also made you realize that if I am required to make Findings and reach Conclusions I am opening up third-party suits that will make, in view of the size of the industry, the percentage of people involved higher than in the electrical cases." (United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 US at 582.)