Richard Warren Roberts
Judge Roberts no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Roberts decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He refused summary judgment where an agency offered only a generalized assertion that exempt audio contained no segregable information.
“Because the affidavit does not state that an appropriate agency official reviewed the telephone conversations at issue here and concluded that they contained no reasonably segregable portions, the Department of Justice has not demonstrated adequately that it has complied with its obligation to disclose all reasonably segregable portions of the otherwise exempt records.”
He enforced an unambiguous settlement after the defaulting parties conceded both the agreement and their failure to pay.
“they have not established the relevance of their ability to pay as defense to enforcement of their unambiguous and undisputed contractual obligation.”
He treated statutory exhaustion as mandatory but nonjurisdictional where Congress had not expressly made it jurisdictional.
“Because 18 U.S.C. § 983 does not state explicitly that its exhaustion requirements are jurisdictional, they will be treated as non-jurisdictional.”
Cautions
He barred a party from introducing a new factual position on the eve of trial after discovery had closed and the party had repeatedly taken the opposite position.
“It would be unfairly prejudicial to permit LSR to inject this new issue into this litigation after the close of discovery.”
He rejected post-judgment arguments that repeated matters already decided or that could have been raised earlier.
“the movant must not ‘relitigate old matters, or raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that the District’s motion .[155] for reconsideration and relief from the April 13, 2007 Order be, and hereby is, DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Lederman’s motion [156] for reconsideration and reaffirmance of the April 13, 2007 Order be, and hereby is GRANTED.”
The court ordered that “any evidence offered for the purpose of proving that documents obtained from HLS were obtained voluntarily shall be EXCLUDED.”
“Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted for the defendant.”
“the plaintiffs motion for entry of judgment will be granted, and the defendants’ motion to modify the March 11, 200.9 order will be denied.”
“Accordingly, the defendant’s motion will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that the parties’ joint request for an order vacating the oral rulings issued on December 13, 2006 and March 6, 2009 such that the rulings may not be cited as precedent and may carry no precedential value be, and hereby is, DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion [54] under § 1083 of the NDAA be, and hereby is, DENIED.”
“Summary judgment will be entered for defendants on the remaining claim.”
“The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment will be denied, and all other pending motions will be denied as moot.”
The court stated that “this civil action will be dismissed for plaintiffs failure to prosecute. All pending motions will be denied as moot.”
“ORDERED that the defendants’ motion [219] for reconsideration be, and hereby is, DENIED.”
“Defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss will be granted as conceded.”
“Because plaintiff does not establish that he is eligible for or entitled to an award of costs, his request will be denied.”
“Accordingly, DePuy’s motion [58] for summary judgment will be granted.”
A historical record
Judge Roberts 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.