Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty
How Judge Geraghty rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Geraghty
Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Geraghty received a commission on April 8, 2022.
Judge Geraghty's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Geraghty, 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
Motions
Put record citations in a summary judgment brief, not just in its facts statement.
“All citations to the record evidence should be contained in each party’s brief, not just in the party’s statement of undisputed (or disputed) facts.”
Discovery
After conferring, email the courtroom deputy and copy opposing counsel before filing a discovery motion.
“the movant, after conferring with the respondent in a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute by agreement, must contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Ms. Pittman, by email, copying opposing counsel”
Discovery
If the court requests pre-conference statements, keep each to no more than three pages.
“the Court will typically request that each side submit a brief statement by email of no more than 3 pages”
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 Geraghty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the equal-protection challenge to Georgia's categorical hormone-therapy prohibition, she tested the asserted state interests against the evidentiary record and required a close fit between those interests and the law's scope; evidence about risks, benefits, professional debate, and alleged malfeasance did not justify the categorical ban.
“In light of what the evidence has shown about (1) the risks and benefits of the treatment, (2) the strength of evidence supporting it and the state of debate over gender-affirming care, (3) and alleged instances of malfeasance in the administration of that care, there is no ‘close means-ends fit’ between SB 140’s sex-based ban and the state’s asserted interests.”
Procedural preferences
In Mayhew, with no objections to the recommendation, Geraghty reviewed for clear error, adopted it, and denied three separately identifiable defense filings.
“No objections have been filed in response to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R for clear error and finds none.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Emergency Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“their Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with a contract against AX Holdings Inc. and Nest Financial Services LLC, which is dismissed with prejudice. The motion is denied with respect to all other claims.”
“The Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docs. 49, 59) are DENIED.”
“That motion is DENIED AS MOOT because the Court requires no further information regarding the notice of appeal given its November 10 order (Doc. 107).”
“Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 62) is DENIED.”
In a TVPRA hotel sex-trafficking civil-beneficiary case under 18 U.S.C. 1595(a), Geraghty's pretrial memorandum held that the statute authorizes punitive damages because the claim sounds in tort with 'an element of outrage,' following Ditullio and Francisco while distinguishing Barnes v. Gorman. It also held that the plaintiff could play the defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition video at trial regardless of the deponent's availability under Rule 32(a)(3) and Coughlin. The memorandum did not resolve a party motion.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted with respect to Counts I through V and VII of the Second Amended Complaint, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is denied with respect to Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to DISMISS all defendants except for Defendants Harmon and Feldman in their individual capacities.”
“the Court OVERRULES Mr. Holder's objections (Doc. 60, 61) and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&Rs (Doc. 55, 56). Mr. Holder's motions to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 29) and to suppress evidence (Doc. 30) are DENIED.”
“the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections (Doc. 35), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 33), and DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 21).”
“the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 28) and DENIES Mr. Rodriguez-Soto's motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 20, 24).”
“the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Doc. 86.) Defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 22, 24), to suppress evidence (Doc. 23), and to suppress in-court and out-of-court identification (Doc. 73) are DENIED.”
“Defendant Tait's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 44) is GRANTED. ... Defendant Tait is DISMISSED from the case.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 40) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Movant's amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Doc. 46) is DENIED, and the original § 2255 motion (Doc. 44) is DENIED AS MOOT. A certificate of appealability is DENIED because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and resolution of the issues presented is not debatable.”
“Movant's amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Doc. 46) is DENIED, and the original § 2255 motion (Doc. 44) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 36). Mr. Jones's motion to dismiss the indictment, (Doc. 30), is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
General civil docket: a heavy consumer credit-reporting cluster (Equifax/Experian), plus product liability, qui tam, trade-secret, trafficking, wage-and-hour, immigration, insurance, and employment cases. Referral magistrates seen on her dockets include Catherine M. Salinas, John K. Larkins III, Christopher C. Bly, J. Elizabeth McBath, and Lawrence R. Sommerfeld.
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 | 11 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 14 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 11 | 14 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
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 Geraghty: 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 Geraghty with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Geraghty, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Geraghty's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace