Robert Gillespie James
How Judge James rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge James
Robert Gillespie James is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge James received a commission on August 3, 1998. Judge James assumed senior status on May 31, 2016.
Judge James's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge James, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Senior Judge Robert G. James ↗
- Rule 26(f) Case Management Report ↗
- Pretrial Order Form ↗
- Exhibit List Form ↗
- Witness List Form ↗
Key rules
Filing
Email courtesy copies of contested motion papers, and manually deliver attachments longer than 15 pages.
“Judge James requires courtesy copies of contested motions, supporting memorandum, and responses. Copies should be e-mailed to chambers at: [email protected] . If attachments to the motion exceed 15 pages, copies should be manually delivered to chambers at the address above.”
Motions
Do not expect a regular motion date; the court may order oral argument.
“Judge James does not maintain a regular motion date, but may order oral argument.”
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).
- General Order 0001-2025: Procedures for Access and Management of Sealed or Restricted Documents ↗
- General Order 0001-2024: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- SO 1.74 Service and Scheduling of Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- SO 1.75 Regarding Third-Party Litigation Funding ↗
How Judge James decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Moore, reconsidered an Act 312 statutory interpretation after reviewing legislative history: direct recovery remains possible for unreasonable or excessive operations, although restoration to original condition still requires an express contract.
“Thus, the Court amends its Ruling to clarify that the 2014 Amendments do not overrule LL&E with respect to the damages a successful plaintiff can directly recover.”
In Pepper v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., he granted the insurer summary judgment because the policy unambiguously required the death to be independent of sickness, even if its definition of accident was ambiguous.
“Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 32] is GRANTED, and Mrs. Pepper’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED. Mrs. Pepper’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
On appeal from a discovery protective order in Shreveport, distinguished a commissioner’s public blog statements from legislative acts, reversing protection for those statements while affirming the rest of the order.
“Accordingly, that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling granting a protective order as to the statements made by Commissioner Jackson on his blog is REVERSED.”
Cautions
In Pham v. University of Louisiana at Monroe, James denied an expelled student's request for a mandatory preliminary injunction reinstating him. He found that the student had not shown a substantial likelihood of success or irreparable harm.
“Pham’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Denbury has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 31] moving the Court to (1) dismiss the Moores’ claim for remediation to original condition and (2) find that Denbury’s only obligation is to fund the most feasible remediation plan under Act 312. For the following reasons, Denbury’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Pham’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the extent they seek qualified immunity with respect to all claims against them in their individual capacities for monetary damages. Those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 32] is GRANTED, and Mrs. Pepper’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED. Mrs. Pepper’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 32] is GRANTED, and Mrs. Pepper’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED.”
“Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 22] filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Plaintiff Jerry L. Johnson opposes the motion. [Doc. No. 27]. For reasons assigned below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 88] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE at Plaintiff’s cost.”
“UDC’s motion for a preliminary injunction, contained in its Complaint [Doc. No. 1], is DENIED.”
“Its motion for a temporary restraining order [Doc. No. 10] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Having considered Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court finds no basis to alter, amend or rescind its previous Memorandum Ruling and Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 110] is DENIED.”
“the motion is GRANTED. Upon reconsideration, the Court finds that damages awarded under LA. REV. STAT. § 30:29 M(1)(c) need not be deposited into the Court’s registry. The motion is otherwise DENIED.”
“the Ruling of the Magistrate Judge is REVERSED with regard to that portion of the Ruling granting a protective order as to the statements made by Commissioner Jackson on his web blog. The Ruling is AFFIRMED in all other respects.”
“the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show an amendment of the Court’s original findings is warranted under Rule 52(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“movants’ Motion for Leave to Intervene [Doc. No. 121] is DENIED.”
“the OPPJ’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 15] is GRANTED, and Tribble’s claims against the OPPJ are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
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 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Western District of Louisiana, not for Judge James: 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 | 1,541 | 13.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 287 | 8.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 832 | 13.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 398 | 16.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 27.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,541 | 13.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,194 | 16.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,966 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,186 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,330 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,064 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,190 | 11.5 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 James with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge James, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge James's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace