John W. Sedwick
How Judge Sedwick rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sedwick
John W. Sedwick is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Sedwick received a commission on October 9, 1992. Judge Sedwick assumed senior status on March 13, 2011.
Judge Sedwick's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Sedwick's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Procedure for Access and Management of Sealed, Restricted and Ex Parte Documents (Second Amended) ↗
- Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Appointment of Counsel and Procedures for Compassionate Release Motions ↗
- Electronic Communication Devices in the Courtroom ↗
How Judge Sedwick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ninilchik Traditional Council v. Towarak, Sedwick held that the council had to exhaust its administrative remedies before the FSB before the court could grant the requested relief.
“The court is powerless to grant NTC the relief it seeks until it exhausts its administrative remedies before the FSB.”
In State of Alaska v. Zinke, Sedwick considered a change in administration when assessing intervention: the new administration might not vigorously defend the challenged NPS regulations.
“It is fair to assume that an administration that is willing to nullify the challenged FWS regulations with the stroke of a pen may not vigorously defend similar NPS regulations in this litigation.”
Procedural preferences
In Collinge v. IntelliQuick Delivery, Sedwick struck a late expert declaration because it was a new report rather than a Rule 26(e) supplement and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ fees for the motion.
“Crandall is not even supplementing his old report, let alone doing so to incorporate newly obtained evidence ... Requiring IntelliQuick to comply with discovery deadlines is not unduly harsh.”
In Snead v. Wright, Sedwick declined to exclude the proposed financial-services expert outright, but barred him from stating the legal conclusion that Merrill Lynch breached its fiduciary duties.
“McConnell must refrain from offering the opinion included in his report that Merrill Lynch breached its fiduciary duties, because that is a legal conclusion that encroaches on the job of the fact finder.”
Cautions
In Gustafson v. Bowman, Sedwick set aside Bowman’s default after finding no evidence that Bowman meant to manipulate the proceedings. He conditioned relief on payment of the plaintiffs’ reasonable fees for the default motions.
“There is no evidence that Bowman intended to take advantage of Plaintiffs, interfere with this court's decision-making, or manipulate the judicial process.”
In United States v. Burford, Sedwick allowed statements prompted by a question about possible danger inside a residence as an officer-safety inquiry, while suppressing answers to separate booking-interview questions.
“Inquiring about danger that might lurk in the premises about to be entered by the other officers was related to public safety.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the preceding discussion, Merrill Lynch's motion to exclude the proposed expert testimony of Chris McConnell at docket 134 is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion in limine at docket 71 is DENIED.”
“Based on the preceding discussion, NTC's motion at docket 51 for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.”
“Based on the preceding discussion, the Applicants' motion to intervene at docket 6 is GRANTED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of the United States and against North Mail, Inc. in the amount of $9,642,905.91”
“the motion at docket 64 is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Within 14 days of entry of this order ZMG must serve answers to Premera's interrogatories 2 and 13-15 and RFPs 1 and 13-14. In all other respects, Premera's motion is denied.”
“Given that the court has now ruled on ZMG's summary judgment motion, Premera's motion to compel Dr. Zipperer's deposition will be denied as moot.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the motion at docket 13 is GRANTED; Bowman's default is set aside.”
“This court adopts Magistrate Judge Smith's thorough and well reasoned report and her recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based thereon, the motion at docket 170 as supplemented at docket 186 is DENIED.”
“The motion at docket 21 is GRANTED in part such that responses to questioning about whether Burford lived alone and what his residence address was may not be introduced by the United States during its case in chief ... and DENIED in all other respects”
“the motion at docket 23 is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion at docket 879 is GRANTED. This case is stayed pending appeal.”
“Plaintiffs' motions at docket 883 and 884 are denied without prejudice to renewal if appropriate following conclusion of the appeal.”
“Plaintiff's motion at Docket 15 to conditionally certify collection action of Plaintiff's FLSA minimum wage claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) is GRANTED.”
“plaintiffs' motion at docket 439 is GRANTED. The declaration of Robert Crandall filed at docket 430-1, and all references to the declaration, are hereby stricken.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 26 days (N = 9).
Sedwick's reviewed docket spans personal-injury and product-liability suits, insurance and benefits disputes, employment and civil-rights claims, Social Security appeals, tax collection, interpleader, Miller Act litigation, and consumer-debt cases. His assignments tapered late in his senior service, although he continued deciding older matters.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Alaska, not for Judge Sedwick: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 235 | 10.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 38 | 10.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 191 | 9.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 235 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 230 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 259 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 358 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 281 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 263 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 336 | 8.3 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Sedwick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sedwick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sedwick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace