William H. Orrick III
How Judge Orrick rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Orrick
William Horsley Orrick, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Orrick received a commission on May 16, 2013. Judge Orrick assumed senior status on May 20, 2023.
Judge Orrick's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Orrick, 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
Provide courtesy copies only for manually filed electronic media or over 100 pages of exhibits on specified urgent or dispositive motions.
“No courtesy copies shall be provided, except: (1) courtesy copies of electronic media manually filed shall be provided to chambers; and (2) if the exhibits submitted in support of motions for temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or summary judgment exceed 100 pages, courtesy copies shall be provided in binders with tabs separating each exhibit.”
Discovery
Lead trial counsel must meet in person or by video about discovery disputes; exchanging letters or calls is insufficient.
“In the event of a discovery dispute, lead trial counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in person or by videoconference to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere exchange of letters, e-mails, telephone calls, or facsimile transmissions does not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer.”
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 Orrick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In San Francisco's challenge to the 2025 funding directives, he granted a preliminary injunction after finding the Cities and Counties had met the required factors.
“Counties are entitled to a preliminary injunction.”
In Sample v. Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, he granted summary judgment on termination-related claims in light of after-acquired fitness-certification evidence, while factual disputes left harassment and hostile-work-environment claims for trial.
“After-acquired evidence establishes that Mr. Sample did not disclose evidence of his mental health issues when being certified for his job as a ready-mix driver in accordance with the mandates of the Department of Transportation, requiring his dismissal. His termination-related claims fail as a result. There are substantial factual disputes over his harassment and hostile work environment claims against Cemex, so causes of action related to its liability for conduct while Mr. Sample was employed will survive.”
In the reviewed wage-and-hour case, he treated restricted stock units as excluded from the regular rate for overtime calculations under the statutory gift and equity exceptions.
“Under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(1) (the ‘gift exception’) and § 207(e)(8) (the ‘equity exception’), the answer is ‘No’. For the additional reasons set forth below, Apple’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.”
In the reviewed employment dispute, a documented electronic acknowledgment and unused opt-out period supported enforcing an arbitration agreement.
“Because Rivas failed to exercise her option to opt out of the arbitration agreement, she became bound by the Agreement.”
In a software licensing dispute, he allowed copyright claims to proceed alongside a contract claim after finding the pleaded federal claim sufficient for jurisdiction.
“Actian has adequately alleged copyright claims asserting violations of 17 U.S.C. § 505 as well as a breach of contract claim over which I may exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In a member action of the Juul Labs litigation, he granted an unopposed motion to dismiss with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs who had stopped communicating with counsel.
“Having considered the Motion, seeing no opposition, and with good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES the Complaints filed by all plaintiffs identified in Exhibit A with prejudice.”
In Gomez v. New Champion Promotions, LLC, he granted summary judgment on an Ali Act disclosure violation but left disputed compensation and contract claims for trial.
“The parties would be wise to recognize the flaws in the written agreements and to resolve them through further negotiation rather than risk the all-or-nothing likely results at trial. For the reasons explained above, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part as it concerns defendants’ violation of the disclosure provision of the Ali Act and DENIED for all other causes of action.”
Cautions
In Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., he let the artists' Copyright Act claims proceed at the pleading stage while dismissing their DMCA Section 1202 claims with prejudice.
“Defendants' motions to dismiss the DMCA claims are GRANTED and the DMCA claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Defendants' motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims are DENIED. Midjourney's motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claims is DENIED. DeviantArt's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims is GRANTED and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
In the reviewed municipal-liability summary judgment, disputed facts about a single tow did not establish a City policy or practice without evidence of a broader custom.
“McCaffrey fails to establish a genuine dispute of material fact that the City had a custom of towing and impounding private vehicles without notice.”
In the reviewed satellite-radio subscription dispute, he denied arbitration because customers were not shown the agreement before subscribing, so their acceptance of service did not establish assent to its arbitration clause.
“Because I conclude that there was no manifest assent between plaintiffs and Sirius XM concerning the arbitration agreement prior to entering into contract, I DENY the Motion to Compel.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Having established all of the Winter factors, the Cities and Counties are entitled to a preliminary injunction. ... Defendants and their officers ... ARE HEREBY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds from the Cities and Counties based on [the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directive].”
“Defendants' motions to dismiss the DMCA claims are GRANTED and the DMCA claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Defendants' motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims are DENIED. Midjourney's motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claims is DENIED. DeviantArt's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims is GRANTED and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Having considered the Motion, seeing no opposition, and with good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES the Complaints filed by all plaintiffs identified in Exhibit A with prejudice.”
“For the above reasons, Unisys's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Saba's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Unisys's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Saba's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”
28 U.S.C. 1915A prisoner-complaint screening order that rules on no party motion. Orrick found cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against six Salinas Valley prison guards and ordered Marshal service, while dismissing claims against other defendants for failure to state a claim. The order states: 'All claims against them are DISMISSED.'
“The individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in full.”
“Cemex’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART regarding Causes of Action 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10. Material disputes exist for Causes of Action 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 and Cemex’s motion is DENIED concerning them.”
“the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part as it concerns defendants’ violation of the disclosure provision of the Ali Act and DENIED for all other causes of action.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Lee may amend her aiding and abetting and UCL (for the unlawful prong only) claims. The other causes of action against Crypto.com are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
This interim order postponed the hearing and required historical evidence about the account-creation webpage before the court would decide the pending arbitration motion. It expressed only a tentative view of the dismissal motion and resolved neither motion.
This May 11 version was replaced the next day by an amended order. It is retained for context and excluded from statistics because the replacement text was unavailable in the sampled public record.
“For the reasons described above, Apple’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendant.”
“Both parties’ motions to exclude expert witnesses are DENIED, except for plaintiffs’ motion to exclude portions of Barbara Baksa’s report, which is GRANTED in part.”
“Fort Bragg’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Orrick's 2026 sample is dominated by newly filed civil matters, pro se filings, and criminal cases, as expected for a recently senior judge who continues to receive assignments. The terminated-case sample filed from 2019 through 2021 is heavily weighted toward Juul multidistrict-litigation member cases, along with racketeering and criminal matters. The durations below come from terminated cases.
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 | 38 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 38 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 36 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 56 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 178 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 1,509 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 732 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 275 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 25 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 17 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 15 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 12 |
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 Orrick: 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 Orrick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Orrick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Orrick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace