G. Murray Snow
How Judge Snow rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Snow
G. Murray Snow is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Snow received a commission on July 23, 2008. Judge Snow assumed senior status on October 21, 2024.
Judge Snow's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Snow, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Case Management Order ↗
- Case Management Order - Class Certification Case ↗
- Case Management Order - ERISA Case ↗
- Contact Information ↗
- Courtroom Protocol ↗
- Criminal Order of Referral ↗
- Guidelines for Jury Instructions in Civil Cases ↗
- Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference ↗
- Order Setting Rule 16 Case Management Conference ↗
- Order Setting Rule 16 Case Management Conference - ERISA Case ↗
- Proposed Final Pretrial Order ↗
- Stipulated Protective Order ↗
- Trial Conduct and Decorum ↗
- Voir Dire Questions - Civil ↗
- Voir Dire Questions - Criminal ↗
Key rules
Motions
Get permission by joint telephone call before filing more than one summary judgment motion.
“No party shall file more than one motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless permission is first obtained, by joint telephone call, from the Court.”
Discovery
Seek leave before filing a written discovery or sanctions motion.
“The parties shall not file written discovery motions or motions for sanctions without leave of Court.”
Discovery
Request a telephone conference promptly when a discovery dispute arises.
“If a discovery dispute arises between the parties, the parties promptly shall contact the Court to request a telephone conference concerning the dispute.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Snow decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In the continuing Melendres remedial proceeding, he allowed plaintiffs’ counsel limited access to an investigator’s descriptions while a motion to alter the injunction was pending, while keeping ordinary privilege disputes outside counsel’s routine participation.
“when there is before the Court any motion that calls for the consideration or reconsideration of any part of the injunctive orders of the Court, Defendants’ counsel shall immediately transmit to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the United States’ counsel any short statement received from the Independent Investigator”
Cautions
In Woodall v. Phoenix Police Department, Snow granted officers qualified immunity on a wrongful-detention claim because the plaintiff did not cite factually analogous precedent clearly establishing the alleged Fourth Amendment violation.
“In the Fourth Amendment context, he is obliged to cite factually analogous cases with specificity to identify a clearly established right that places the question of whether the officer's conduct was unlawful under the particular circumstances beyond debate. Waid, 87 F.4th at 387-88. He has not done so. Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's Wrongful Detention Claim.”
In Woodall v. Phoenix Police Department, Snow granted the City summary judgment on failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims because the plaintiff identified no pattern of similar prior incidents beyond his own detention.
“In general, a single incident, in this case the one involving Plaintiff, does not support a failure-to-train theory.”
He treats dismissal as a discovery sanction as an extreme, last-resort remedy: even against a litigant who repeatedly disregarded court orders he preferred lesser sanctions (striking filings) and a merits resolution.
“Nevertheless, the sanction of dismissal is extreme. The Court has stricken many of Plaintiff's filings and specified the ones to which Defendants were to respond. Those are the appropriate and lesser sanctions here. Defendants do not demonstrate sufficient prejudice to justify dismissal. Further, a resolution on the merits is favored.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’/Counter-Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment of SingleCare Services, LLC (Doc. 42) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) The Motion for Summary Judgment as to the GSA is DENIED; (2) The Motion for Summary Judgment as to the RSA is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 25), is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Harrah’s Arizona Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Advanced Supplementary Technologies Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 180), is GRANTED”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 182), is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.”
“(4) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) is denied.”
“(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53) is denied.”
“(3) Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 91) is denied as unnecessary.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Keith Rezendes’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Operative Complaint (Doc. 35) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for U.S. Marshal Service (Doc. 24) is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Marketo Incorporated’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated above”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Jon Secord’s Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 71) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 66) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s Motion is granted as to Defendant Silk being an ‘employer.’ The Motion is denied as to all other grounds.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Concentric HealthCare Solutions, Kyle Silk, and Chris Bollinger’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) is DENIED.”
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 | 14 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 14 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 14 | 14 |
| Sep 2025 | 5 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 12 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 11 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 43 | 12 |
| Mar 2023 | 16 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 30 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 14 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 11 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 10 |
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 Arizona, not for Judge Snow: 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 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 135 | 2.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,001 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 335 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,278 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,126 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,181 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,857 | 20.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,128 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,842 | 9.6 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 Snow with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Snow, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Snow's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace