Frank Dennis Saylor IV
How Judge Saylor rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor, IV is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Saylor received a commission on June 2, 2004. Judge Saylor assumed senior status on July 31, 2025.
Judge Saylor's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Saylor, 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.
- Judicial Forum Survey ↗
- Standing Order - Appearance of Counsel by Telephone ↗
- Standing Order - Courtroom Opportunities for Relatively Inexperienced Attorneys ↗
- Sample Scheduling Order ↗
- Scheduling Order ↗
- Patent Order ↗
- Instructions to Counsel Concerning Trial Procedures ↗
Key rules
Discovery
If expert testimony later becomes necessary, file a notice of intent to call an expert by the deadline in the scheduling order.
“Whether expert testimony is likely to be necessary. If it seems unlikely, I will issue a scheduling order that does not provide for expert discovery, but with a deadline for filing a notice of an intent to call an expert. If such a notice is filed, I will reset the calendar and provide for expert discovery.”
Conferences
Longer continuances require defined circumstances; postponements will not be granted as informal probation.
“Normally, I will grant short extensions to accommodate the schedules of counsel (or, occasionally, family members or victims). I will grant longer extensions in clearly-defined circumstances, such as when a defendant is in the RISE program or is cooperating with the government. I will not grant postponements as a form of informal probation.”
Trial
Courtesy copies are preferred by the morning of the first trial day.
“I don't require courtesy copies, but I strongly prefer them. I would like to have them no later than the morning of the first day of trial.”
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 Saylor decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Elliston v. Wing Enterprises, Saylor granted summary judgment against a tort-based punitive-damages claim but left a Massachusetts Chapter 93A multiple-damages claim for trial because willfulness remained disputed.
“defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part as to any claim for punitive damages arising out of tortious conduct and DENIED in part as to the claim for multiple damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.”
In Insulet v. EOFlow, Saylor reduced a spoliation-related fee request. He excluded work outside the sanctioned conduct, reduced hours that were not separated from ordinary litigation work, and cut 143.7 hours spent on one motion to 80.
“143.7 hours is an unreasonable expenditure of time for a relatively short, straightforward motion and argument. Eighty hours of attorney time is a more appropriate amount to spend on such a motion.”
In Palomar Technologies v. MRSI Systems, Saylor held the asserted method patent invalid under Section 101 at summary judgment after finding an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
“U.S. Patent No. 6,776,327 claims subject matter that is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 and is therefore invalid.”
In United States v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, he allowed a second partial summary judgment motion and limited discovery on a false-certification theory because the complaint’s factual allegations had already put the defendant on notice of it.
“The fact that ‘false certification’ was never explicitly stated as a theory of liability in the complaint is of no moment—‘it is factual allegations, not legal theories, that must be pleaded in a complaint.’”
Procedural preferences
In Morales v. Spencer, Saylor denied the defendants' Rule 12(b)(5) motion without prejudice and allowed the self-represented plaintiff 30 more days to serve them, observing that the defendants had shown no prejudice.
“it is the practice of this Court to grant some latitude to pro se plaintiffs who make procedural missteps ... neither have defendants shown that they would suffer prejudice if the time for service was extended.”
Cautions
He treats FTCA administrative exhaustion as a non-waivable jurisdictional bar: a tort claim against the United States (or a federal officer in the FTCA's ambit) is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) if no administrative claim was filed with the agency first. File the SF-95/agency claim before suing.
“Failure of a claimant to exhaust her administrative remedies is a non-waivable, jurisdictional bar to bringing suit in federal court under the FTCA ... this court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim.”
In the Zofran product-liability litigation, Saylor denied the manufacturer's preemption-based summary-judgment motion. He found GSK had not shown on undisputed facts that it could not strengthen the warning through the FDA's changes-being-effected process or that the agency would reject the stronger warning.
“GSK has not proved, based on the undisputed facts, either (1) that the CBE process was unavailable to it to make more substantial warnings ... or (2) that there is 'clear evidence' that the FDA would not have approved a label including such warnings.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim are GRANTED and the complaint is dismissed.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED.”
“The motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part as to any claim for punitive damages arising out of tortious conduct and DENIED in part as to the claim for multiple damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.”
“plaintiff Insulet Corporation is awarded $10,677.98 in fees and expenses for the incremental discovery that it had to perform due to the spoliation and $81,288.90 for the fees and expenses incurred to bring the motion for an adverse-inference instruction. The total award of $91,966.88 is imposed against defendants Ian Welsford, Nephria Bio, Inc., EOFlow Co., Ltd., and EOFlow, Inc., jointly and severally.”
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“The motion of defendant MRSI Systems, LLC for summary judgment on the issue of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101 is GRANTED ... U.S. Patent No. 6,776,327 claims subject matter that is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 and is therefore invalid.”
“the motion of plaintiff Palomar Technologies, Inc., for summary judgment on the same issue is DENIED.”
“The remaining motions of Palomar Technologies, Inc., for summary judgment are DENIED as moot.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption is DENIED.”
“the motion of the United States for leave to file a second motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of falsity, materiality, and causation under a false-certification theory of FCA violation is GRANTED. The government's request for a limited reopening of discovery is also GRANTED.”
“absent clear direction from the Court of Appeals, the Court will not reverse its judgment as to an issue that was never appealed. The Court will therefore enter a final judgment providing that any gaming facility ... is not subject to state and local laws and regulations concerning gaming ... [but] is otherwise subject to state and local regulation, including any applicable permitting requirements.”
“Defendants' original motion to dismiss (Docket No. 12) is DENIED without prejudice as moot.”
“Defendants' second motion to dismiss (Docket No. 38) is DENIED without prejudice as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 218 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 116 days (N = 1).
- Saylor's docket includes Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson, the Singular Computing patent litigation, the Insulet trade-secret dispute, the Zofran products-liability multidistrict litigation, and the Regeneron False Claims Act case.
- Other sampled matters involve product liability, employee benefits, employment, and immigration.
- These examples illustrate the range of matters reviewed and are not a quantitative measure of his full caseload.
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 | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 18 | 299 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 275 |
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 District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Saylor: 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 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,095 | 3.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 881 | 7.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 676 | 17.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 30 | 34.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,439 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,756 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,222 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,582 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,391 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,438 | 23 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 Saylor with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Saylor, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Saylor's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace