Virginia K. DeMarchi
How Judge DeMarchi rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge DeMarchi
Virginia K. DeMarchi has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in San Jose for the Northern District of California since 2018. Before joining the bench, she was a litigation partner at Fenwick & West and a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division. She earned degrees from Stanford University and Harvard Law School.
Judge DeMarchi's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge DeMarchi, 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
Motions
Civil motion hearing dates need no advance reservation; check the court’s availability before noticing the motion.
“Counsel need not reserve a hearing date in advance but noticed dates may be reset as the Court’s calendar requires. Before noticing a motion for hearing, please check the Court’s availability”
Discovery
After lead counsel confer on a discovery dispute, the parties must jointly submit a letter within five court days unless they agree to extend the deadline.
“If a dispute remains following the conference of lead counsel, the parties shall jointly submit a letter to the Court no later than 5 court days after the conference of lead counsel, unless the disputing parties agree to extend that deadline.”
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 DeMarchi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., she allowed a two-hour deposition of a chief executive on limited topics but declined to require collection of his custodial files.
“The deposition will be limited to two hours on the record. The parties shall cooperate in the scheduling of the deposition for a date and time convenient to the witness that is on or before August 5, 2026. Teva need not collect, review, and produce documents from Mr. Francis’s custodial files.”
Cautions
In the Teva-Corcept subpoena dispute, she quashed Dr. Snyder's deposition subpoena because he had no relevant factual information and the requesting party had not shown his expertise was uniquely needed.
“The Court grants Dr. Snyder’s motion to quash.”
In the reviewed securities discovery dispute, she protected counsel's work product when the requesting party could obtain the underlying facts by collecting documents and deposing the identified witnesses.
“The Court is not persuaded that defendants have shown a substantial need for disclosure of plaintiff’s counsel’s work product. Defendants know who the former employees are. They can readily assess the accuracy of the FAC’s allegations by obtaining documents relevant to those allegations and questioning the former employees about the pertinent facts and any other facts that might undermine plaintiff’s claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“On May 18, 2023, Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that this pro se case be dismissed as plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. ... Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the full record of this case, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in full and DISMISS this case with prejudice as barred by res judicata.”
“the allegations in the amended complaint fail to state a plausible claim for relief or a basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court finds no basis to conclude that there are additional facts that could be alleged on a further amendment to cure the deficiencies identified above. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.”
“As the motion for leave appears to contain the arguments Team Co says it would make if given leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the Court grants the motion for leave and will reconsider its July 20, 2022 order based on grounds set forth in Team Co's motion for leave. ... the Court declines to postpone service on Google and to defer the question of consent/declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction until after the Court decides Team Co's Section 1782 application.”
“Within three court days of this order, Dropbox may identify five invalidity contention charts per asserted patent, each with a single prior art reference per chart (for a total of 10 invalidity contention charts); however, four of the prior art references must be the same/overlap as between the two patents, with only one unique prior art reference per patent. ... Dropbox may identify no more than seven total terms or phrases across both patents for which Dropbox asserts an invalidity challenge under 35 U.S.C. Section 112.”
“The Court agrees with Meta that Interrogatory No. 7 is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. ... Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiffs' request for an order requiring Meta to comply with the full scope of Interrogatory No. 7.”
“The Court cannot order defendants to produce recordings they do not have. ... Accordingly, the motion to compel is denied.”
“Corcept may take Mr. Francis’s deposition regarding his critique of the nature of Teva’s strategies for promoting generic mifepristone and his ideas for possible solutions. The deposition will be limited to two hours on the record.”
“Good cause appearing, the Court grants defendant’s sealing motion.”
“Good cause appearing, the Court also grants Corcept’s administrative motion to file under seal the documents and deposition excerpts cited in the discovery dispute letter.”
“The Court grants Dr. Snyder’s motion to quash.”
“Good cause appearing, the Court grants Dr. Snyder’s sealing motion.”
“the Court orders defendants to produce to plaintiffs the documents defendants previously produced to the DOJ, subject to the limitations explained below. Defendants need not produce any other documents responsive to RFPs 2-4.”
“Good cause appearing, the Court grants plaintiffs’ sealing motion, as narrowed by Block.”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court grants plaintiff’s request for a protective order regarding RFPs 1, 2, 5 and 6 in the document subpoenas directed to the former employees.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court affirms the ALJ’s decision. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this file.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants Strike 3’s application and orders as follows:”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- As an initially assigned San Jose magistrate judge, DeMarchi handles a broad mix that is notable for foreign-discovery and other miscellaneous discovery applications, alongside Social Security appeals, immigration and administrative-review matters, civil rights, False Claims Act, copyright, prisoner and habeas cases, and criminal-magistrate duties.
- The durations measure filing to termination, not motion-to-ruling time.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 1 |
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 DeMarchi: 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 DeMarchi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge DeMarchi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge DeMarchi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace