Edward Willis Nottingham Jr.
Judge Nottingham no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Nottingham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He strictly construed removal procedure and favored an early, definite resolution of the forum question.
“the first-filed rule is more consistent with the long line of cases strictly construing removal and similar jurisdictional statutes against removal.”
He refused to convert consultative-expert protection into a tool for suppressing otherwise discoverable information.
“a shield to prevent a litigant from taking undue advantage of his adversary’s industry and effort, not a sword to be used to thwart justice”
He preserved public access where a publicly funded settlement presented no particularized reason for secrecy.
“I will not use the authority of this court to keep the terms of this settlement confidential.”
Procedural preferences
He required reliable foundation before using changeable internet material through judicial notice.
“There is, in other words, the question of whether the defendants, the magistrate judge, the district judge, and any reviewing court are literally on the same page when they visit the site on different dates.”
He treated criminal subpoenas as an evidence tool rather than an additional means of discovery.
“The courts, however, have uniformly held that rule 17(c) subpoenas may not be used as a discovery device.”
He favored agency patent reexamination where technical expertise could simplify or eliminate the issues before the court.
“the court will benefit from the PTO’s expertise and determination on reexamination, and Plaintiff will not be unduly prejudiced by the stay.”
Cautions
He refused to vacate sanctions through settlement because the orders served a public deterrent function beyond compensating the parties.
“While the parties may bargain away the benefits they receive under such orders, they are not entitled to bargain away the public interest by demanding that the court vacate the orders.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“EEOC’s motion to strike or, in the alternative, file a surreply (# 152) is GRANTED in part;”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss EEOC’s nationwide claims (# 112) is GRANTED;”
“Defendants’ objection to the Magistrate’s Order (#48) is denied as MOOT.”
“DEFENDANT ATMEL’s motion (# 46) to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“DEFENDANT HARTMAN’s, DEFENDANT REINERT’s, DEFENDANT RATHER’s motions (#43, # 44, # 45) to dismiss are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“ORDERED that defendant’s motion concerning ex parte defense subpoenas be DENIED.”
“The motion for writ of mandamus is GRANTED.”
“The motion for withdrawal of reference of the adversary proceeding is DENIED as moot.”
“All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.”
“DEFENDANT’S motion (#49) to stay is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to rescind order limiting access to public records is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment be denied.”
“The motion to dismiss (# 147) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Evergreen’s motion (# 3) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Reavis’ motion (# 21) for oral argument is DENIED as moot.”
“DEFENDANT’S motion (#49) is GRANTED.”
“Petitioner Charles Bruce White’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a Person in Federal Custody is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Petitioner’s ‘Request for Evidentia-ry Hearing’ filed June 14, 1999 is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The nine sampled archival civil cases included two employment matters, two securities cases, two contract disputes, two civil-rights cases, and one benefits matter. This historical slice is not a career-wide caseload profile.
A historical record
Judge Nottingham no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.