Roger B. Cosbey

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana magistrate Retired 2015 6 signed orders read

Judge Cosbey no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Cosbey decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In employment-retaliation and discrimination cases he scrutinizes causation closely: contemporaneous, documented performance problems that predate the protected activity defeat the inference that the adverse action was retaliatory.

“Park Center's motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED”

Procedural preferences

He enforces discovery and briefing deadlines firmly -- treating Rule 36 requests as admitted when responses are late, striking untimely summary-judgment responses, and refusing to let a party amend a late-filed brief -- while still allowing relief from deemed admissions where Rule 36(b)'s standard is met.

“EMF's motion to strike will be GRANTED, and its motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED with respect to Wells and Smith but DENIED as to Humes”

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 Court finds that Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment should be GRANTED”

Cautions

He resolves motions claim-by-claim and party-by-party rather than all-or-nothing, so a single summary-judgment order can clear some claims or defendants while expressly leaving others (e.g. a Section 1983 excessive-force claim, or one of several co-plaintiffs) for trial.

“Assistant Principal Damerell's motion will be GRANTED, and the Officers' motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Glentel, Inc. v. Wireless Ventures, LLC
· 2005-03-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court finds that Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment should be GRANTED”

Invisible Fence, Inc. v. Perimeter Technologies, Inc.
· 2007-03-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Perimeter's motion for summary judgment on the patent infringement claim will be GRANTED”

Larsen v. Fort Wayne Police Department
· 2010-06-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Assistant Principal Damerell's motion will be GRANTED, and the Officers' motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Officers' motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Wells v. EMF Corp.
· 2010-12-01
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“its motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED with respect to Wells and Smith but DENIED as to Humes”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“EMF's motion to strike will be GRANTED”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“their motion to strike and motion to amend response brief will be DENIED”

Motion to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs' motion to amend admissions will be GRANTED”

Motion to amend (plaintiff) Denied
Moore v. Park Center, Inc.
· 2011-11-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Park Center's motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED”

Hartman v. Dana Holding Corp.
· 2013-10-21
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“both Mrs. Hartman's and Defendants' motions for summary judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

A historical record

Judge Cosbey no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.