Julie Ann Robinson
How Judge Robinson rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Robinson
Julie A. Robinson is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Robinson received a commission on December 13, 2001. Judge Robinson assumed senior status on January 14, 2022.
Judge Robinson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Robinson, as published on the court's website (checked October 28, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Seek relief by filing a motion or appropriate pleading; do not ask chambers for relief directly.
“Counsel should never contact chambers for purposes of seeking relief; counsel should seek relief by filing a motion or other appropriate pleading.”
Filing
For briefs in her cases, count the entire brief toward the local page limit except the contents table, authorities table, and service certificate.
“As a supplement to the local rule, the page limitations for briefs filed in cases assigned to Judge Robinson shall apply to the entire brief with the following exceptions: table of contents, table of authorities, and certificate of service.”
Filing
By the jury-instruction deadline, file proposed instructions electronically and email a Word version to chambers.
“To be considered timely filed, the parties in civil and criminal cases must do two things by the filing deadlines: (1) electronically file the proposed instructions; and (2) submit the proposed instructions (formatted in Word) as an attachment to an e-mail sent to”
Motions
A combined TRO and preliminary-injunction request is treated as a preliminary-injunction request unless Rule 65(b) is satisfied.
“If a motion seeks a TRO or Preliminary Injunction in the alternative, the Court will treat the request as one for Preliminary Injunction, unless movant complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).”
Trial
In civil trials, reserve exhibit numbers 1–800 for plaintiffs and 801 or higher for defendants.
“Exhibits shall be numbered as follows: Nos. 1-800 are reserved for the plaintiff(s); Nos. 801 and higher are reserved for the defendant(s).”
Trial
In criminal trials, mark and exchange all exhibits at least seven calendar days before the firm trial setting.
“All exhibits must be marked and exchanged at least seven (7) calendar days before the first day of the firm trial setting in criminal cases.”
Trial
Offer original exhibits electronically where possible in jury trials.
“The Court requires that, to the extent possible, the original exhibits be offered in electronic format for jury trials.”
Trial
Provide the judge one paper copy of all exhibits, marked and in a three-ring binder.
“Counsel shall provide one paper copy of all exhibits for Judge Robinson and shall contact Ms. Spegal to determine if further copies are required for the particular trial. These paper copies shall be marked, as noted above, and submitted in a 3-ring binder.”
Trial
Disclose the next day’s expected witnesses and exhibits to opposing counsel by 6 p.m. the preceding day.
“witnesses and exhibits expected to be used in the trial should be disclosed to opposing counsel no later than 6:00 p.m. the day before.”
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).
- Standing Order 26-04: Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order 26-01: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Standing Order 25-04: Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 25-03: Suspension of Local Rule 79.4 for Civil Sealed Files ↗
- Standing Order 2021-1: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Robinson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bettis v. Hall, Robinson denied the defendants' posttrial request for judgment or a new trial on a $302,000 general verdict. Even assuming insufficient evidence for the two projects they challenged, the verdict could have rested on other projects and brokerage fees whose evidentiary support they did not challenge.
“The jury’s award of damages thus could have been based only on the Shorefox and Grand Elk projects and the brokerage fees.”
An earlier patent dismissal with prejudice supported claim preclusion against renewed infringement claims involving the same products.
“In sum, the Court finds Garmin established all three claim preclusion elements.”
In LM Insurance, Robinson rejected an intervening insurer’s effort to obtain policy coverage through waiver or estoppel because an incidental reduction in its own exposure did not make it an intended beneficiary of the policy.
“That is an incidental consequence of coverage, not evidence that LM and Smart Framing Construction LLC contracted with the intent to directly benefit Fastframe or National Liability.”
In one FLSA collective action, the court narrowed the group by claim: it excluded workers pursuing only pre-shift waiting time and retained the travel-time collective. Tailor decertification arguments to the specific compensation theory and the evidence supporting common treatment.
“The Court grants the motion as to opt-in Plaintiffs who seek overtime compensation for pre-shift waiting time only. The Court otherwise denies the motion to decertify.”
Procedural preferences
On Title VII administrative exhaustion: failing to check the race/sex box on an EEO charge creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim is not asserted, and it is rebutted only if the charge's narrative sets forth that basis. A charge that frames mistreatment as injury- or retaliation-based does NOT exhaust race or sex claims, because no race/sex investigation could reasonably be expected to follow. Make sure the EEO charge narrative names the protected status you later sue on.
“Plaintiff gave no indication in her EEO complaint that her claims were based on race or sex discrimination such that an administrative investigation would reasonably be expected to follow, even under a liberal construction of the EEO complaint.”
In a patent case, Robinson refused a late change to an expert report after the opponent identified the error and dispositive briefing had closed.
“Overstock’s dispositive motion is already fully briefed, so the Court declines to allow Lexos, yet again, to submit a change to its expert’s report at this procedural juncture.”
In a railroad negligence case, Robinson denied a request to amend made only in opposition to dismissal because the plaintiffs filed no amendment motion, identified no proposed new allegations, and supplied no proposed pleading. State the changes and attach the proposed complaint when seeking leave.
“Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for leave to amend, identified the specific allegations they would add, or attached a proposed amended complaint.”
In Miller, Robinson allowed a surreply limited to an authentication declaration introduced for the first time with the defendant’s summary-judgment reply.
“Harper’s sworn declaration is new material raised in Defendant’s reply; the declaration never appeared in prior briefing.”
Cautions
On § 1983 supervisory liability, pleading that a defendant was 'in charge' is not enough. The complaint must allege an affirmative link — that the supervisor personally participated, or had actual knowledge of the violation and acquiesced in its continuance. There is no vicarious or strict supervisor liability under § 1983.
“Plaintiff only alleges that Detective Wheeles was ‘in charge,’ which is not sufficient to establish supervisory liability under § 1983.”
In Lewis v. Wheeles, Robinson granted the detective’s dismissal motion after Lewis failed to respond by the deadline, treating the motion as uncontested under Local Rule 7.4. She also found the complaint lacked the facts needed to plead supervisory liability.
“Plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s motion to dismiss, leaving defendant’s motion uncontested. As a result of plaintiff’s failure to respond, the Court grants defendant’s motion.”
For a property owner’s Section 1983 challenge, continued effects of earlier tax and zoning decisions did not restart the limitations period.
“not new constitutional violations that restart the limitations period.”
In Murray, Robinson found arbitration waived after the defendant litigated through scheduling and discovery before seeking to compel arbitration, imposing costs on the plaintiff.
“Defendant acted inconsistently with any right to arbitrate and substantially invoked the judicial process before seeking a stay. The relevant factors support a finding of waiver, and Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is therefore denied.”
In United States v. Mayo, Robinson reopened a compassionate-release motion after the defendant supplied evidence of exhaustion, then denied relief. She found that the disparity attributed to nonretroactive Amendment 833 was not an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce the sentence.
“In sum, the Court determines that any sentencing disparity between the sentence Defendant received and the one that would be imposed if Amendment 833 retroactively applied to her, is not an extraordinary and compelling circumstance that warrants compassionate release.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.”
“Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s remaining claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it need not reach Defendant’s alternative motion for summary judgment as it is moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendants’ Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial (Doc. 150) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial on Issue of Damages (Doc. 151) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant Bryan Wheeles’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is granted.”
“Overstock’s motion to strike Dr. Russ’s declaration is granted”
“Lexos’s motion to supplement Dr. Russ’s report with his declaration is denied”
“Defendant Overstock’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Samuel Russ, Ph.D. (Doc. 174) is granted.”
“the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal Documents (Doc. 206) is granted in part, denied in part, and moot in part.”
“the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal Documents (Doc. 198) is moot.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Judicial Notice (Doc. 19), Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 22), Motion to Supplement the Record in Support of Pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26), and Motion to Supplement the Record and Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 29) are denied as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 53) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 54) is granted.”
“Garmin’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 56) is granted.”
“Wisconsin Archery’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52) is denied.”
“LM’s Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore granted.”
“National Liability’s motion for summary judgment, which rests on the contrary contention that the Policy does provide coverage for that claim, is denied.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 57) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Counts VIII–IX) are dismissed. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is otherwise denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 28) is denied.”
“Defendant Mission 200, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 41) and UKHA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) are granted.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 45) is moot”
“his Amended Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 55) is denied.”
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 17 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 United States District Court for the District of Kansas, not for Judge Robinson: 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 | 967 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 225 | 4.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 83 | 18.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 967 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 912 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 909 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,063 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,180 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,884 | 20.7 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 Robinson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Robinson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Robinson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace