Andrew P. Rodovich
How Judge Rodovich rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rodovich
Andrew P. Rodovich has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Indiana since 1982, first full-time and later on recall after his 2013 retirement. Before joining the federal bench, he practiced law in Hammond and served as chief deputy prosecutor in Lake County.
Judge Rodovich's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Rodovich's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Rodovich decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Collins v. Purdue University, Rodovich applied the pleading plausibility standard to claims against a newspaper and granted its motions for judgment on the pleadings.
“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”
In an exhaustion dispute, he treated a prison grievance process as unavailable after the prisoner submitted a grievance and written follow-up without receiving a response. The defendant’s failure to dispute that account left its summary judgment defense unproved.
“Sgt. Powell has not met his burden to show Brown did not exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit.”
Procedural preferences
In Medical Assurance Co. v. Weinberger, Rodovich rejected boilerplate objections to disputed discovery and addressed the parties' motions to compel and to strike.
“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”
Cautions
In Golemine v. Town of Merrillville, Rodovich denied the town's ripeness challenge because the alleged malicious conduct and completed injury made the civil-rights claims fit for review despite the lack of a town-council appeal. He also denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike the jurisdictional challenge and ordered a clearer amended complaint.
“Therefore, the court finds that this case is fit for judicial review since a concrete, complete injury already has occurred and the allegations are that the conduct was malicious.”
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].”
“Based on the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Motion [DE 32] and AWARDS fees to Attorney Eric A. Farr in the total amount of $37,179.00.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31] is DENIED.”
“For these reasons, the court GRANTS Warden Neal’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [DE 28] and DISMISSES Warden Neal from this case.”
“Based on the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Motion [DE 30] and AWARDS fees to Attorney Matthew F. Richter in the total amount of $12,249.75.”
“Because the court finds remand necessary given the ALJ’s assessment at Step Five, the court need not address Higginbotham’s other arguments at this time. Accordingly, the court REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision.”
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 | 3 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 3 |
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 Indiana, not for Judge Rodovich: 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 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 68 | 2.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 958 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 302 | 14.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 43.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,336 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,248 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,434 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,258 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,408 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,576 | 13.8 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 Rodovich with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rodovich, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rodovich's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace