Amy Mil Totenberg
How Judge Totenberg decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment she follows the empirical record closely: where a defendant produces affirmative testing/exposure data, she lets the claim go to trial; where the plaintiff has 'no evidence' tying that defendant to the harm, she grants SJ. The same order split two co-defendants on identical legal theories.
“the Court finds the evidence is strong enough to overcome summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against MFG”
Procedural preferences
Moves expeditiously on emergency/PI matters with tight, explicit briefing schedules and allocated oral-argument time, but rules on a full record after an evidentiary hearing (denied MTG's TRO/PI 17 days after filing, following a hearing and supplemental briefing).
“the Court will endeavor to rule expeditiously on this matter this week”
Cautions
Will say plainly when the government's evidentiary presentation is deficient, yet still rule for it where controlling precedent compels the result; expects litigants to provide 'fully developed and legally supported' arguments rather than gesture at factors.
“The Government's presentation (or lack thereof) of what specifically occurred with respect to the flip phones was no doubt sloppy.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to exclude expert N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to suppress N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Defendants SunTrust and Wells Fargo's Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 27, 29] are GRANTED and Zeal's Amended Complaint [Doc. 23] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant Americhem's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 1183] is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Americhem, Inc. by separate order.”
“Defendant MFG's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 1184] and Motion to Strike [Doc. 1559] Plaintiff's Response to the Motion are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Timothy Richards [Doc. 1268] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“the Court hereby OVERRULES Defendant's Objections [Doc. 155] and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 153] as modified by this Order. Mr. Hill's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 128] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1763 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 17 days (N = 1).
Mix is from search_dockets case-level rows, not a weighted IDB baseline (no FJC IDB row on the marquee cases).