John J. Tuchi
How Judge Tuchi rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tuchi
John Joseph Tuchi is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Tuchi received a commission on May 16, 2014.
Judge Tuchi's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Tuchi, 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.
- Civil Joint Proposed Pretrial Order ↗
- Courtroom Protocol ↗
- Criminal Order of Referral ↗
- Discovery Disputes ↗
- Exhibit Procedures ↗
- Guidelines for Jury Instructions in Civil Cases ↗
- Notice to Court Reporter ↗
- Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference (Criminal) ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order in a Patent Case ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order in an Action for Review on an Administrative Record, IDEA, ERISA Case ↗
- Standard Civil Prescreening Jury Questionnaire ↗
- Standard Criminal Prescreening Jury Questionnaire ↗
- Trial Conduct and Decorum ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Do not file a written discovery motion without leave of court.
“The parties shall not file written discovery motions without leave of the Court.”
Discovery
For an unresolved discovery dispute outside a deposition, jointly file a summary limited to one page per side.
“Except during a deposition, if a discovery dispute arises and cannot be resolved despite sincere efforts to resolve the matter through personal consultation (in person or by telephone), the parties shall jointly file • a brief written summary of the dispute, not to exceed one page per side, with an explanation of the position taken by each side;”
Discovery
For an urgent discovery dispute during a deposition, jointly telephone the court.
“If a discovery dispute arises in the course of a deposition and requires an immediate ruling of the Court—a circumstance that should be exceedingly rare—the parties shall jointly contact the Court telephonically.”
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 Tuchi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one product-liability case, the court allowed the plaintiff to test an alleged failure mechanism through discovery despite uncertainty at the pleading stage.
“Plaintiff will have the opportunity, through discovery, to try to substantiate this theory or to pinpoint another more precise cause of the alleged defect. ... whether Plaintiff can produce a sufficient quantum of evidence to support her claim is a question for a later stage of the case.”
Procedural preferences
In one personal-jurisdiction dispute, the court required a meaningful connection between the defendant’s conduct and the forum.
“The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.”
In one order, the court decided a dispositive motion on the briefs under the local rule permitting that procedure.
“The Court finds oral argument unnecessary to resolve the Motion. See LRCiv 7.2(f).”
After appellate remand, the court declined to reconsider the circuit’s mandate and distinguished new arguments based on intervening authority.
“Here, the Ninth Circuit considered the issue of qualified immunity, disagreed with this Court's holding, reversed that holding, and remanded the matter to this Court to proceed accordingly. The mandate is clear, and the Court will not disturb it.”
Cautions
After observing signs that a pro se litigant might have used an automated drafting tool, he warned that Rule 11 requires a good-faith basis for each claim and that blind reliance on an external source could be sanctionable.
“so is blind reliance on an automated or other external source without that good faith belief, after reflection, that a claim is factually and legally supported.”
In one premises-liability case, the court required evidence of breach beyond the fact that a store fixture fell and injured a customer.
“The fact that a rug stopper did fall is simply not enough to show Defendant’s breach of the standard of care.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 4). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment accordingly and close this case.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff and Counterdefendants Larry J. Busch and Busch Law Center, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 121).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant and Counterclaimant Yellow Brick Road, LLC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 129). YBR is not entitled to summary judgment on its RICO claims, Counts I-II ... YBR is entitled to summary judgment on the remainder of its counterclaims, Counts III-V, as well as all of the Busch Parties' claims as set forth in this Order.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERD denying Defendant Daimler Truck North America LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 73.) ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Defendant's favor and close this case.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion to Strike as moot. (Doc. 89.)”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant Instacart's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34). Plaintiff's claims against Instacart are dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendant Out West Ventures, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 146) as renewed by the Supplement (Doc. 169).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Kelly Standorf's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 167). The filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint relates back to the filing of the original Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1). Plaintiff's Motion is denied in all other respects.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 44). Under the Policy, Defendant may not depreciate the cost of materials for the repair of the dryer, fire, and electrical systems.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46). Defendant is entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages, but Defendant's Motion is denied in all other respects.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16). Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 19), Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 22), and second Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 24).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant Rooter Ranger LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Rooter Ranger LLC.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Jordan and Brittany Beebe's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike (Doc. 31) and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Jordan and Brittany Beebe.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Jordan and Brittany Beebe's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 38). The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 38) is stricken.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in full Mr. Sheridan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 88).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part, as described hereinabove, the University Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 89).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant Khosravi's Motion to Terminate or Dismiss France Khosravi as a Party (Doc. 211).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff SEC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34).”
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 | 14 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 14 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 9 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Tuchi: 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 Tuchi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tuchi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tuchi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace