Sharad Harshad Desai
How Judge Desai rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Desai
Sharad Harshad Desai is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Desai received a commission on January 7, 2025.
Judge Desai's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Desai, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Case Management Order ↗
- Case Management Order -ERISA Case ↗
- Criminal Order of Referral ↗
- Discovery Dispute Matrix (DO NOT USE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED) ↗
- Joint Pretrial Memorandum - Criminal ↗
- Joint Proposed Pretrial Order ↗
- Order Requiring 26(f) Report – ERISA Case ↗
- Order Requiring Rule 26(f) Report ↗
- Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference – Criminal ↗
- Order Setting Jury Trial and Final Pretrial Conference - Civil ↗
- Preliminary Order ↗
- Standard Civil Juror Questionnaire ↗
- Standard Criminal Juror Questionnaire ↗
- Standard Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not send paper courtesy copies of pleadings, short procedural motions, Rule 26(f) reports, or stipulations.
“Do not send paper courtesy copies of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) pleadings, short procedural motions (e.g., motions for extension of time), 26(f) reports, or stipulations.”
Motions
Every motion and stipulation must cite the authority that permits the requested relief.
“Every motion or stipulation, however mundane, must cite the rule(s) and/or law(s) that permit the Court to grant the requested relief.”
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 Desai decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a prisoner Eighth Amendment medical-care case, evidence that a non-examining medical director overrode a treating specialist's urgent-surgery recommendation in favor of 'conservative management' (which here meant no treatment, leaving a permanent deformity) is enough to defeat summary judgment and reach a jury on deliberate indifference and Monell custom.
“a reasonable jury could conclude that this decision was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs”
In one dismissal ruling, the court allowed a limitations claim to proceed when the complaint plausibly alleged unsound-mind tolling, leaving the disputed mental-state evidence for a developed record.
“Because Ronsick has plausibly pleaded Unsound Mind Tolling, however, his claims may be timely, and dismissal at this stage would be inappropriate.”
Procedural preferences
In one expert-exclusion ruling, the court treated limitations in the expert’s record review as matters for cross-examination where the opinion still rested on sufficient facts and relevant experience.
“Rule 702 requires only that Dr. Steingart’s opinions be based on ‘sufficient’—not exhaustive—‘facts and data.’”
In Bernadette B. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Desai vacated the administrative decision and remanded for further proceedings after finding that the agency’s conceded error left issues requiring further consideration.
“The Court determines in its discretion to remand for further proceedings and not apply the credit-as-true rule.”
In one removal dispute, the court rejected a Rule 41 request to drop a single count while keeping the rest of the action pending.
“Rule 41 applies to the voluntary dismissal of an entire action, not to the dismissal of individual claims within a multi-count complaint.”
Cautions
In one case, the court identified a nonexistent citation in a party’s filing and invoked the requirement that legal arguments have a good-faith basis.
“the contrary authority Gustafson cites is a non-existent case”
In one reconsideration order, the court applied the filing deadline and manifest-error standard to deny a motion that repeated prior arguments.
“reconsideration is ‘an extraordinary remedy that is available only in highly unusual circumstances.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Gann’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 185) is granted. Defendant Gann is dismissed from this action without prejudice.”
“Defendants NaphCare and Neiswonger’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 146) is denied.”
“Defendants Centurion, Pippins, Stewart, and Tripp’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 198) is granted in part and denied in part ... The motion is granted as to Defendants Pippins and Tripp, and Defendants Pippins and Tripp are dismissed from this action with prejudice. (b) The Motion is otherwise denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Gustafson’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 56) is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the ALJ is vacated and remanded for further administrative proceedings. ... The Court determines in its discretion to remand for further proceedings and not apply the credit-as-true rule.”
“IT IS ORDERED granting in part the Motion (Doc. 28). Defendant may have until April 25, 2025 to serve its expert disclosures under Federal Rule of Evidence 26(a)(2)(B).”
“Pending before the Court is Defendant Safeway Inc.’s (‘Safeway’) motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiff Nolan Gorney’s expert, Dr. Michael Steingart. (Doc. 32.) For the following reasons, Safeway’s motion is denied.”
Pro se prisoner-condition case. Desai adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation (no objections filed; reviewed without de novo review under Reyna-Tapia) dismissing the second amended complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute (plaintiff never returned the service packet or responded to an order to show cause). The order resolved no pending party motion. It illustrates that this judge will dismiss for failure to prosecute after an order to show cause, but without prejudice.
“IT IS ORDERED granting OSHA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) without prejudice 23 and without leave to amend.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) is granted in part and denied in 12 part as follows:”
“IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 18), without 2 prejudice and without leave to amend.”
“IT IS ORDERED that First Health’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 30), is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED granting Edmondson’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 9).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled docket is dominated by a 2026 wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions, most of them still pending, alongside Social Security appeals, prisoner civil-rights cases, employment disputes, insurance and contract matters, personal-injury removals, and patent cases.
- Many older matters were reassigned to Desai after he took the bench in January 2025, so they describe inherited work rather than cases he managed from filing.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 5 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
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 Desai: 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 Desai with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Desai, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Desai's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace