Amy Mil Totenberg
How Judge Totenberg rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Totenberg
Amy Mil Totenberg is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Totenberg received a commission on March 1, 2011. Judge Totenberg assumed senior status on April 3, 2021.
Judge Totenberg's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Totenberg, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Provide courtesy copies for summary judgment motions or motions with voluminous exhibits.
“Courtesy copies are not required except for motions for summary judgment or motions with voluminous exhibits.”
Motions
File the complete transcript of each deposition cited in a summary judgment brief.
“the party shall simultaneously file on the docket the complete transcript of each deposition referenced in the brief.”
Discovery
Get court permission before filing a discovery motion, after a good-faith conference.
“The parties shall not file discovery motions (including motions to compel, motions for protective order, and motions for sanctions) without prior permission from the Court.”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Totenberg decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Johnson v. 3M, she denied one defendant's summary-judgment motion because testing evidence supported a factual dispute, but granted another defendant's motion for lack of evidence connecting it to the alleged discharge.
“the Court finds the evidence is strong enough to overcome summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against MFG”
In H.F.S.R. v. Francis, she held that an imminent threat of detention at an immigration hearing was sufficient for habeas custody and granted relief on the petitioner's statutory classification.
“Petitioner's potential detention upon arriving at his hearing tomorrow is, thus, not speculative; rather, it is a foreseeable result of ICE's new detention policy. ... the Court GRANTS Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 7] and DECLARES that Petitioner is not an 'arriving alien' as contemplated by 8 U.S.C. § 1225.”
In the voting-system case, she denied a broad immediate switch to hand-marked ballots but granted limited relief to address scanner treatment of voter marks, directing the parties to propose a narrower remedy.
“the Court DENIES the Curling Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 785] and DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART the Coalition Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction on BMDs, Scanners, and Tabulators, and Audits [Doc. 809].”
Procedural preferences
In Greene v. Raffensperger, she told the parties she would endeavor to rule that week on an emergency injunction request.
“the Court will endeavor to rule expeditiously on this matter this week”
In Sisson v. Kadenzo Enterprises, she denied an eve-of-trial motion to reconsider a summary-judgment finding because the defendant had not cited the evidence during the earlier briefing and had missed the local deadline.
“Defendant did not point to any of this rebuttal evidence that it now wants to rely on to seek reconsideration over a year later, on the eve of trial. ... Accordingly, Defendant's Emergency Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 116] is DENIED.”
Cautions
In Hill's suppression dispute, Totenberg described gaps in the government's account of two phones found during a vehicle stop, yet denied suppression after finding probable cause for the stop and search.
“The Government's presentation (or lack thereof) of what specifically occurred with respect to the flip phones was no doubt sloppy.”
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.”
“For the reasons discussed at length below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 7] and DECLARES that Petitioner is not an 'arriving alien' as contemplated by 8 U.S.C. § 1225.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. 2] is GRANTED as follows: ... Respondents are RESTRAINED from detaining Petitioner until the pending habeas petition before this Court can be heard and decided on the merits.”
“For the reasons explained above, Defendant has not shown any appropriate ground for reconsideration of the Court's January 9, 2026 Order, or of its October 25, 2024 Order. Accordingly, Defendant's Emergency Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 116] is DENIED.”
“the Court DENIES the Curling Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 785]”
“DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART the Coalition Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction on BMDs, Scanners, and Tabulators, and Audits [Doc. 809].”
“DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 26] as to all counts.”
“The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.”
“Defendant Champa’s Motion for Attachment and Garnishment is DENIED.”
“the Motions filed by Defendants Connie Jacobs-Walton, Andrea Arnold, Chet Burge, Patricia Garrett, Panos Kanes, and Meredith Roark, [Docs. 71, 72, 74], are GRANTED and they are DISMISSED from this case.”
“The City of Decatur’s Motion, [Doc. 73], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“The State’s Motion to Remand [Doc 13] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The Wuster’s Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint [Doc. 92] is therefore 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).
The mix is drawn from sampled case records rather than a weighted court-wide caseload baseline. Several significant cases lacked an administrative case-closure row and therefore do not contribute to the duration figures.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 17 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 22 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 17 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 17 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division), not for Judge Totenberg: 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 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 640 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 4,138 | 1.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,901 | 11.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 31.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,190 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,614 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,403 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,908 | 6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,463 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,954 | 6.2 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 Totenberg with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Totenberg, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Totenberg's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace