Harvey Erwin Schlesinger
How Judge Schlesinger rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schlesinger
Harvey Erwin Schlesinger is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Schlesinger received a commission on July 2, 1991. Judge Schlesinger assumed senior status on June 5, 2006.
Judge Schlesinger's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Schlesinger, 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.
- Civil Jury Trial Procedures ↗
- Criminal Trial Procedures and Preparation ↗
- ERISA Case Management Report ↗
Key rules
Filing
Use Judge Schlesinger’s case-management report for ERISA actions.
“For Judge Schlesinger’s cases, the parties shall use this Case Management Report (CMR) for actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. sec. 1001, et seq.”
Trial
In civil jury trials, file proposed voir dire, instructions, and verdict forms at least six working days before trial.
“Counsel shall serve and file with the Clerk’s Office all proposed voir dire questions, proposed jury instructions, and proposed verdict forms not later than six (6) working days before the scheduled trial date.”
Trial
In criminal jury trials, file proposed voir dire, instructions, and verdict forms at least six working days before trial.
“Counsel shall serve and file with the Clerk’s Office all proposed voir dire questions, proposed jury instructions, and proposed verdict forms not later than six (6) working days before the scheduled trial date.”
Trial
On the first day of trial, exchange exhibit and final witness lists and give the courtroom deputy three copies of each.
“On the first day of trial, counsel shall exchange a copy of their Exhibit List and final Witness List with other counsel and shall also provide three (3) copies of each list to the Courtroom Deputy.”
Trial
Arrange your own trial audio or visual equipment and notify the courtroom deputy before installing it.
“The court does not furnish audio and/or visual equipment for use during trials. Counsel must make their own arrangements regarding audio and/or visual equipment.”
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 10, 2026).
How Judge Schlesinger decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In First Coast Energy v. Cincinnati Insurance, he limited his coverage analysis to the issues necessary to resolve the claim for defective fuel tanks and their repair or replacement.
“Addressing only the issues necessary to resolve the matter, the Court concludes that the policy provides no coverage to the extent First Coast seeks recovery for the loss of use of the defective tanks, or for their repair and replacement.”
Rejects a claim of contractual ambiguity by pointing to ordinary drafting practice rather than to canons of construction.
“The Court is unable to discern how this gives rise to ‘duplicity’ or ‘uncertainty’ in the meaning of the provision's language-it is standard drafting practice to define terms in sections different from the provisions that refer to them.”
Measures an agency's account of its own conduct against what the record produced over the life of the case actually shows.
“The existence of these additional documents poses a serious challenge to Defendant's claim that its initial search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”
States a conflict between two statutes in one plain sentence before resolving which yields.
“An irreconcilable conflict is what appears before this Court — the Code permits conduct that the Act prohibits.”
Frames a dispute over a new technology as a separation-of-powers question about the limits of the judicial role.
“In this case this Court is confronted with an old problem: the difficulty of reconciling new technology with old law, thus raising the centuries old separation of powers controversy.”
Treats an insurer's failure to defend as settling the coverage question, then moves directly to the amount.
“Since Evanston breached the AE Policy when it failed to defend Plaintiffs in the Beverly Litigation and Plaintiffs incurred liability in the amount of $325,000.00 and attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.”
Declines to read a qualification into an exclusion the parties wrote without one.
“As DCSB fails to raise an issue of genuine fact as to the ambiguity of the pollution exclusion, summary judgment in favor of Century is appropriate.”
Acknowledges that any election rule burdens some voters, which sets the baseline against which a challenge must be measured.
“it is clear that every regulation that creates an election structure will necessarily disenfranchise some voters.”
Reads interdependent counts as a single sentencing package rather than as severable parts.
“The Court finds that the interdependence and mutual exclusivity of 924(c) sentence and the 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement means that terms of imprisonment imposed under both constitute a single ‘sentence’ for purposes of 2255.”
Cautions
Says directly when a party has offered no authority for the position it presses.
“Defendant has cited no authority for excusing an agency from its FOIA obligations because the requester was not harmed.”
Names the practical burden litigation has imposed on the parties before it, even where that does not change the outcome.
“Plaintiffs understandably are frustrated by the lengthy, cumbersome process they have endured, and continue to endure, with regard to the proper calculation of their retirement benefits, as well as the seeming non-existence of documents or agency employees who can explain how the decision in 2008 to reduce Plaintiffs' benefits was made.”
Distinguishes what would be convenient from what a court has authority to order.
“Nor does the Court have the authority to order the opening of additional sites based merely on the convenience of voters.”
Warns that a party who disagrees with a lawfully issued order may not simply ignore it.
“It is clear to this Court, and it should be clear to Plaintiffs and Defendant Carlberg, that due to the contempt power, of the courts, no lawfully issued order can merely be ignored by a party who disagrees with the order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“(1) Defendant Robert Lee Gilbert’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 123) is GRANTED;”
“Accordingly, because the remedy sought has -no correlation to a race-based ‘meaningful access’ case or to a race-based discrimination case, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is hereby GRANTED.”
“1. Century’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Pollution Exclusion (Doc. No. 490) is GRANTED.”
“1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment against Evanston (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.”
“2. Evanston’s Motion for Summary-Judgment against Plaintiffs (Doc. 26) is DENIED.”
“3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment against Hartford (Doc. 39) is DENIED.”
“4. Hartford’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs (Doc. 67) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE;”
“That Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 68) is granted;”
“That Defendant’s Final Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69) is denied;”
“Defendants’ ‘Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument’ (Dkt. 35, filed April 23, 2013) is DENIED;”
“Defendants’ ‘Corrected Motion to Dismiss Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint with Incorporated Memorandum of Law’ is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 25) is DENIED;”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31) is GRANTED in PART; and”
“Manufacturer Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Their *1312Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Doc. 145) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:”
“Defendant ABB Optical Group’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support of Same (Doc. 146) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:”
“Defendant Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (‘Central’) ‘Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’ (Dkt. 11). is GRANTED”
“1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 115) is GRANTED;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 675 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 19.5 days (N = 28).
- The three counted cases are an insurance coverage dispute removed from state court and two companion race-discrimination employment suits filed the same day.
- The employment pair shows the fuller arc of a trial docket: scheduling extensions, summary judgment, a stay pending interlocutory appeal, and then a dense run of trial motions: motions in limine, motions for judgment as a matter of law, and repeated mistrial requests from both sides ruled on the same day they were made.
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 | 5 |
| 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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 12 | 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 Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Schlesinger: 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 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 49 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,492 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 319 | 14.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,115 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,777 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,781 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,749 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,392 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,830 | 5.7 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 Schlesinger with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schlesinger, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schlesinger's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace