Philip G. Reinhard
How Judge Reinhard rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Reinhard
Philip Godfrey Reinhard is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Reinhard received a commission on February 10, 1992. Judge Reinhard assumed senior status on January 12, 2007.
Judge Reinhard's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Reinhard, 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.
- Case Procedures ↗
- Standing Order for the Final Pretrial Order, Western Division ↗
- Standard Conditions of Supervised Release ↗
Key rules
Motions
Email proposed orders to the assigned judge’s proposed-order address with case and motion details in the subject line.
“To prevent confusion, such proposed orders must be attached to an e-mail sent to the e-mail address of the assigned judge, [email protected] The subject line of the e-mail must include the case number and name, the docket number of the corresponding motion, if any, and the title of the order that is proposed.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Reinhard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Precision Dose’s tax-refund case, Reinhard granted the company summary judgment under the Section 199 domestic-production deduction. Its process for turning bulk medication and specially designed containers into unit doses produced a distinct final product rather than merely repackaging the drugs.
“Likewise, a unit dose is a unique product. Plaintiff is entitled to the Section 199 deduction.”
Procedural preferences
In the Precision Dose case, Reinhard treated the meaning of the Section 199 regulation as a legal question and did not consider the parties’ proposed expert opinions on that interpretation.
“The decision in this case depends on a legal interpretation of 26 C.F.R. 1.199-3(e)(1) & (2). The court did not consider the opinions of these proffered experts in interpreting the regulation as the meaning of the language of the regulation is for the court to determine. No expert opinion is necessary or helpful to that interpretation.”
In one pleading ruling, he granted leave to replead by a fixed deadline and warned that failure to cure by that date would turn the dismissal into one with prejudice.
“Plaintiffs are given leave to file a second amended complaint ... on or before May 22, 2020. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to file a second amended complaint on or before May 22, 2020 will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice.”
In a Title VII retaliation suit, the court treated the plaintiff’s failure to answer the dismissal arguments on time as an independent reason to dismiss.
“Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to defendant’s arguments alone warrants dismissal of the lawsuit.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Commissioner's motion to dismiss [6] is granted. This case is dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion to dismiss [34] is denied. Plaintiffs are given leave to file a second amended complaint seeking judicial review of the denial of their claim for benefits on or before May 22, 2020.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis of improper joinder [20] is granted in part and denied in part. The court dismisses as improperly joined plaintiff's claim against defendant Heath. The court instructs the clerk to terminate Heath as a defendant in this matter.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the government's motion [186] for summary judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion [183] for summary judgment is granted. ... Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $72,522 for the 2007 refund and $74,146 for the 2008 refund plus statutory interest on both.”
“For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion for summary judgment [73] is granted.”
“For the reasons stated below, Tri-Dim's motion [170] to reconsider or in the alternative to grant Tri-Dim leave to file a motion for summary judgment is denied.”
Omnibus case-management order resolving four non-dispositive motions concerning retransfer, an evidentiary bar, clarification, and striking material. The order states: 'For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion [489] to retransfer this case is denied, defendants' motion [460] to bar is denied, plaintiff's motion [462] to clarify is denied, and defendants' motion [454] to strike is granted.' These rulings managed the litigation rather than deciding the underlying merits.
Sua sponte screening of an in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Reinhard wrote: 'For the reasons stated below, this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.' He also denied the plaintiff's motion for attorney representation and denied the in forma pauperis application as moot. The dismissal arose from the court's screening review rather than a party motion.
“For the reasons stated below, defendants motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed”
“the untimely amendment/motion is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice, as it is apparent there is no”
“This case is remanded to the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, Jo Daviess County, Illinois for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Defendant’s motion to transfer is denied as moot.”
“Plaintiffs motion for sanctions related to defendant’s filing of the motion to transfer is denied.”
“defendant Ny-gren’s motion to dismiss count III [11] is denied.”
“Defendant Harding’s motion to strike [20] plaintiffs request for punitive damages in count IV is denied without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 119.0 days (N = 17).
- Sampled recent (2022-2024) terminated filings assigned to 'Philip Godfrey Reinhard'.
- As a senior judge his enumerable docket skews to transportation/personal-injury negligence against trucking and delivery companies, insurance subrogation/coverage (multiple Owners Insurance Co. cases), ERISA/disability-benefits (UNUM, MetLife), ADA and other employment, FDCPA/consumer-finance, and a steady undercurrent of pro se prisoner and civil-rights matters (Winnebago County Sheriff, Dixon Correctional).
- Nature-of-suit codes are frequently blank in the docket records for these dockets; the few labeled are 445 (ADA-employment), 110 (Contract: Insurance), 190 (Contract: Other), and 440 (Civil Rights: Other).
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 16 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 16 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 12 |
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 Illinois, not for Judge Reinhard: 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 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,300 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,558 | 5.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 305 | 12.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 42 | 49.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,700 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,093 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,841 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,703 | 15.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,046 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,134 | 7.4 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 Reinhard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Reinhard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Reinhard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace