Andrew P. Rodovich
How Judge Rodovich decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Rule 12(c) / 12(b)(6) motions he applies the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility framework rigorously, separating well-pleaded facts from legal conclusions, and in media cases layers First Amendment fair-report and opinion protections on top.
“in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
Procedural preferences
He polices summary-judgment and discovery briefing tightly -- striking an improperly filed reply brief while refusing to strike a statement of material facts -- and rejects boilerplate discovery objections, requiring the objecting party to show with specificity why a request is improper.
“That burden cannot be met by a reflexive invocation of the same baseless, often abused litany that the requested discovery is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome”
A career trial judge and trial-practice teacher, much of his written output comes from cases in which the parties consented under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) to let a magistrate judge enter final judgment, so his dispositive rulings are final dispositions, not recommendations.
“the party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing its existence by competent proof”
Cautions
Subject-matter jurisdiction (including ripeness) is treated as non-waivable and reviewable at any time, so he will not dismiss a civil-rights claim as unripe where a malicious-conduct exception applies, nor strike a jurisdictional motion as untimely.
“subject-matter jurisdiction is so central to the district court's power to issue any orders whatsoever that it may be inquired into at any time, with or without a motion, by any party or by the court itself”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, Everest National Insurance Company, (DE 77) is DENIED”
“the First Motion to Compel filed by the plaintiff (DE 89) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“the Motion for Attorney Fees and Sanctions filed by the plaintiff (DE 94) is GRANTED”
“the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, or alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment [DE 145] is addressed as a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Claims Arising Before February 9, 2007 [DE 44] is GRANTED, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts XVI-XVII (Emotional Distress Claims) [DE 46] is GRANTED, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts VII-IX (Defamation/False Light Claims Relating to the Article) [DE 48] is GRANTED, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on All Claims Relating to Third-Party Content [DE 50] is GRANTED”
“the Motion Under Indiana's AntiSLAPP Statute (Treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment) [DE 52] is DENIED AS MOOT”
“the motion to dismiss is DENIED, and the motion to strike is DENIED”
“the Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony and Exclude Evidence [DE 423] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Motion to Compel Production of Withheld Documents and Exclude Evidence [DE 427] is GRANTED with respect to the issues the parties identified as remaining in dispute and DENIED AS MOOT with respect to the remaining issues”
“the Motion to Strike Docket Entries 423 and 425 [DE 462], the Motion to Strike Docket Entries 427 and 428 [DE 467], and the Motion to Strike Docket Entries 465 and 466 [DE 494] are DENIED”
“Accordingly, this court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion [DE 21].”
Put Judge Rodovich's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Rodovich actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Rodovich's own signed orders and cites them.