Richard G. Seeborg
How Judge Seeborg rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Seeborg
Richard G. Seeborg is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Seeborg received a commission on January 4, 2010.
Judge Seeborg's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Seeborg, 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 submit chambers copies of electronically filed documents.
“The parties do not need to submit chambers copies for electronically-filed documents.”
Sealing
Requests to seal information about potential public health or safety hazards require the most compelling reasons.
“only for the most compelling reasons will the Court grant a sealing request covering information that relates to potential hazards to the health, safety, or well-being of the public.”
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 Seeborg decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At summary judgment, a defamation plaintiff must produce evidence creating a genuine dispute over truth; derivative claims may fall with the defamation theory.
“Plaintiffs having failed to produce evidence of any genuine dispute of fact as to the truth of Defendants' statements, their defamation claims necessarily fail as a matter of law--and with them, Plaintiffs' derivative claims also fail. Defendants' summary judgment motion is therefore granted.”
Procedural preferences
In Netgear v. Choice Electronics, he criticized Netgear's motion to dismiss amended counterclaims because a further stipulation could have clarified the effect of an earlier ruling.
“it should have sought a further stipulation to clarify that the ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings remained in effect, rather than burdening the court and defendant with a motion to dismiss.”
In this trade secret dispute, upheld device inspection after finding no clear error in the magistrate judge’s discovery order and considering the protective measures already in place.
“Defendants have not shown that the July 9 Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
In a stayed habeas case, treated amendment as futile where the proposed claim was available on direct appeal and would face a state procedural bar.
“The state procedural bar prevents this court from reviewing Claim Thirty-Two, rendering it futile to allow amendment of the habeas-corpus petition.”
Cautions
In Whitaker v. John's of Willow Glen, he held that the defendant had forfeited its Rule 12(b)(6) argument by raising it for the first time in a reply brief, and denied dismissal.
“[Defendant] forfeited its Rule 12(b)(6) argument by raising the argument for the first time in the reply brief. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied as to both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).”
In Barnes v. Scola, he denied a preliminary injunction after finding the applicant had not shown likely success on a trademark claim; he did not reach the remaining injunction factors.
“Accordingly, a preliminary injunction is not warranted. In light of the insufficiency with respect to success on the merits, the other injunctive factors such as irreparable harm need not be reached.”
Even when a summary-judgment motion is unopposed, the supporting papers must independently establish the absence of a genuine factual dispute.
“The Court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant’s papers are themselves sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact.”
In a removed employment case, he remanded after finding that the alleged defect in a local defendant’s joinder was apparent from the original complaint, making later removal untimely.
“The record thus belies the notion Defendants just became aware of the deficiencies of the claim against Campos and, thus, of removability.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The TAC has remedied the deficiencies previously identified in the FAC and now includes sufficient details to aver a fraudulent scheme under the FCA and the CFCA... Relator has stated colorable claims. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend only with regard to quiet title, breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.”
“Plaintiffs having failed to produce evidence of any genuine dispute of fact as to the truth of Defendants' statements, their defamation claims necessarily fail as a matter of law--and with them, Plaintiffs' derivative claims also fail. Defendants' summary judgment motion is therefore granted.”
“[Defendant] forfeited its Rule 12(b)(6) argument by raising the argument for the first time in the reply brief. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied as to both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).”
“For the aforementioned reasons, KLG's special motion to strike is denied.”
“Its motion to dismiss the fifth claim in plaintiffs' complaint is granted as to plaintiffs' allegations of malpractice without leave to amend, and with leave on the claim that KLG aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty.”
“Firsov’s complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support his other damage claims. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted.”
“Firsov has shown no valid basis for reconsideration. Again, even assuming any technical defect in service, Firsov was given extra and ample time to file opposition. The motion for reconsideration is denied.”
“Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend to add parties is denied, without prejudice to renewal if Firsov ultimately is able to state a claim against American Airlines.”
“Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for injunctive relief at this stage with regard to their trade secrets claims but have not as to the rest. Accordingly, their motion is granted in part and denied in part as set forth below.”
“In short, the present record does not demonstrate the requisite likelihood of success on the merits on Scola’s claim for trademark infringement, notwithstanding how that claim may be developed in the course of this litigation. Accordingly, a preliminary injunction is not warranted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the choice of law to be applied is North Carolina and the standard of review is abuse of discretion. Defendant’s motion is granted.”
“The motion to dismiss is denied as unnecessary. The order on the motion for judgment on the pleadings remains in effect, and Choice’s third and fourth counterclaims cannot go forward to the extent based on allegations regarding warranty practices, but may otherwise proceed.”
“Neither party in the above captioned matter disputes that the case should be remanded to state court. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to remand is granted.”
“Plaintiff also was seemingly unaware that service had occurred. The request for fees is denied.”
“Upon review of the motion brought by Haynes and good cause appearing, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 and the administrator of its Pension Plan are prohibited from distributing Pension funds to Timothy Tanisaki prior to July 17, 2026.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Seeborg's docket caseload. His San Francisco docket is broad: civil rights (Barrera v. Oakland PD), ADA access (Goodwin v. 7-Eleven), habeas (Chavez v. Matteson), False Claims Act qui tam (US v. 1850 Bryant Land), copyright (Crisman v. Celona), fraud (Graham-Loy v. Clear Recon), trade secrets (Osborne Partners v. Whisler), and SEC enforcement (SEC v. Mata; SEC v. Block Bits Capital).
- A large share of his civil docket, ADA-access, wage-and-hour, consumer, ERISA and insurance matters, resolves by stipulated dismissal or mediated settlement rather than a dispositive-motion ruling.
- Durations below are from a sample of terminated dockets.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 23 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 23 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 32 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 24 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 24 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 24 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 24 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 18 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 22 |
| Mar 2022 | 4 | 19 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 20 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 25 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 24 |
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 Seeborg: 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 Seeborg with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Seeborg, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Seeborg's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace