William H. Orrick III

How Judge Orrick rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Position
district
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2013-05-16
ABA rating
Unanimously Well Qualified
Education
Yale University (B.A., cum laude, 1976); Boston College Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1979)
Signed orders read
11

How Judge Orrick decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Grants preliminary injunctions against executive action that likely exceeds constitutional limits, relying heavily on his own and Ninth Circuit sanctuary-cities precedent, treating agency 'guidance' that unambiguously commands action as justiciable, and merging the equities and public-interest factors when the government is a party.

“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].”

At summary judgment, he separates claims affected by after-acquired employment evidence from fact-intensive harassment and hostile-work-environment claims, allowing the latter to proceed when the record contains material disputes.

“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.”

Procedural preferences

In mass-tort MDLs he uses unopposed batch dismissals to clear non-communicating or inactive plaintiffs from the docket for failure to prosecute.

“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.”

When contract wording and extrinsic evidence leave central compensation terms disputed, he may reserve most claims for trial while resolving only the discrete issue supported by an undisputed statutory disclosure violation.

“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 generative-AI training copyright cases he sustains the core direct and induced copyright theory at the pleading stage but is exacting on ancillary statutory hooks, dismissing DMCA Section 1202 CMI-removal claims with prejudice absent specific factual allegations.

“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.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

City and County of San Francisco v. Trump
3:25-cv-01350-WHO · 2025-04-24
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“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].”

Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.
3:23-cv-00201-WHO · 2024-08-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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 re Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (Reardon)
3:22-cv-04029-WHO · 2023-10-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“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.”

Saba v. Unisys Corp.
3:14-cv-01310 · 2015-07-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the above reasons, Unisys's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Saba's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Unisys's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Saba's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”

[prisoner] v. Salinas Valley State Prison officials
3:19-cv-08330 · 2020-08-10

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.'

Sample v. Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC
3:23-cv-00428-WHO · 2026-01-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in full.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Gomez v. New Champion Promotions, LLC
3:23-cv-06608-WHO · 2025-06-23
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“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.”

Lee v. Foris DAX, Inc.
3:24-cv-06194-WHO · 2025-04-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Long v. Alphabet Inc.
3:25-cv-09760-WHO · 2026-03-20

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.

Wallace v. John Stewart Co. & Redwood Gardens
3:25-cv-04433-WHO · 2026-05-11

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.

Francis Costa v. Apple, Inc.
3:23-cv-01353-WHO · 2026-06-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied
Motion to exclude expert (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Motion to exclude expert (plaintiffs) Granted 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.

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