Jeffrey S. White
How Judge White rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge White
Jeffrey Steven White is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge White received a commission on November 15, 2002. Judge White assumed senior status on February 1, 2021.
Judge White's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge White, 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.
Key rules
Filing
Do not send chambers copies of electronic filings unless the court directs otherwise.
“Unless the Court directs otherwise the parties shall not submit chambers copies of materials that are filed electronically.”
Discovery
Absent leave, present a discovery dispute in a joint letter brief of no more than eight pages after meeting and conferring.
“no motions regarding discovery disputes may be filed without prior leave of Court. After the parties have met and conferred, the parties shall prepare a joint letter brief of not more than eight (8) pages explaining 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 White decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a religious-exemption challenge to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate (Title VII / First Amendment / FEHA), White granted a preliminary injunction ordering the employer to reinstate the terminated employee, applying the Winter factors and holding that a multi-year delay in seeking interim relief, while cutting against irreparable harm, was not determinative.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and orders the Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to his former position with the City and County of San Francisco forthwith.”
In the reviewed student-visa case, he allowed a claim focused on a general agency policy to proceed while holding plaintiffs to their representation that they were not challenging an individual visa decision.
“However, because the Court concludes Visa Plaintiffs are challenging a policy, this provision of Section 221(i) also does not bar their claim.”
Procedural preferences
In Gonzales v. Wells Fargo Bank, he dismissed the foreclosure-related statutory claims but granted leave to amend so the plaintiff could plead the missing facts if she could do so in good faith.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, she must do so by no later than March 27, 2015.”
He requires a dispositive motion to identify and apply the procedural rule authorizing the requested relief and to comply with prior hearing instructions.
“Needless to say, any dispositive motion must cite the federal rule under which it is proceeding, and apply the relevant standard.”
Cautions
In Carter v. McConnell, he treated a prisoner's exhaustion-based summary-judgment motion as an unenumerated motion to dismiss and dismissed the action without prejudice.
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment has been construed as an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the motion is GRANTED. (Docket no. 17.) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
In the reviewed cryptocurrency case, allegations that a trading platform received funds from suspicious wallets did not plausibly show knowledge that the funds were stolen from these plaintiffs.
“However, there are no other facts that plausibly allege Defendants knew Plaintiffs were the source of funds in the allegedly illicit wallets.”
In Support Community’s contract and fraud dispute, he denied summary judgment because the record left a factual dispute about when the fraud claims accrued.
“The Court concludes there are disputed issues of fact about when SC’s fraud claims accrued.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, she must do so by no later than March 27, 2015.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Zabit's motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment has been construed as an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the motion is GRANTED. (Docket no. 17.) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and orders the Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to his former position with the City and County of San Francisco forthwith.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss”
“The Court DENIES the motion to strike in its entirety.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary.”
“Accordingly, counsel for MPH International, LLC shall pay Support Community, Inc. through its counsel $25,021.25, within thirty (30) days of this Order.”
White discharged an order to show cause after the defendant appeared and set a firm answer, dispositive-motion, and briefing schedule in a prisoner medical-care case that had experienced substantial delay.
“reduction in his sentence is warranted and DENIES the motion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART”
“The Court finds good cause to examine the document and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file it.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Merck’s motion for summary judgment, GRANTS the motion as to the claim for punitive damages, and DENIES the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Nina Li.”
“DENIES the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Nina Li.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses Mr. McCarthy’s claims with prejudice.”
“the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery as moot”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled cases filed from 2016 through 2019 include environmental, foreclosure, disability-access, prisoner, subpoena, and criminal matters. More recent senior-judge assignments also include pro se habeas petitions. The listed durations measure the full life of each case, not the time taken to decide a particular motion.
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 | 10 |
| 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 | 24 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 10 | 24 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 19 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 19 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 23 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 24 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 32 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 34 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 28 |
| Mar 2022 | 8 | 27 |
| Sep 2021 | 19 | 37 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 39 |
| Sep 2020 | 13 | 31 |
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 Northern District of California, not for Judge White: 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 | 6,017 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,955 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,978 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,052 | 15 months |
| Closed during trial | 32 | 36.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,017 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,248 | 20.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 5,452 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 9,464 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,437 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,881 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,640 | 8.7 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 White with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge White, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge White's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace