Richard Gaylore Stearns
How Judge Stearns rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stearns
Richard Gaylore Stearns is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Stearns received a commission on November 24, 1993.
Judge Stearns's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Stearns, 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 - Courtesy Copies ↗
- Standing Order - Related Actions ↗
- Standing Order - Default Protective Order ↗
- Standing Order - Briefing Page Limits in Patent Cases ↗
- Order Setting Civil Case for Jury Trial ↗
- Order Setting Criminal Case for Jury Trial ↗
- Order Regulating Non-Jury Trial ↗
- Notice of Scheduling Conference ↗
- Special Order re: Proposed Jury Instructions ↗
- Form Jury Instructions (Civil) ↗
- Form Jury Instructions (Criminal) ↗
Key rules
Motions
Absent exceptional advance approval, parties may file one summary judgment motion of at most 30 pages; reply briefs require leave.
“Absent pre-approval from the court in exceptional circumstances, the parties will be permitted to submit one summary judgement motion of no more than 30 pages. Reply briefs are permitted only with leave of court.”
Trial
Submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after trial and production of the transcript.
“I entertain motions regarding evidence in the course of the trial, rather than in limine prior to trial. I will ask counsel to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, but only after the trial and production of the trial transcript.”
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 Stearns decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a 12(b)(6) motion he draws a sharp line between speech as a basis of liability and speech as evidence of misconduct; the Massachusetts litigation privilege bars only the former, so default letters pleaded as evidence of bad faith survive.
“The law draws a distinction between holding a speaker liable for the content of her speech, on the one hand, and using that speech as evidence of her misconduct, on the other. The litigation privilege applies in the former context, but not the latter.”
For LMRA section 301 complete preemption he requires actual interpretation of the CBA, not mere consultation: a state-law claim that only references the agreement is not preempted and (absent diversity) leaves no federal jurisdiction.
“The line is drawn between mere consultation of the CBA, which does not require preemption, and active interpretation, which does.”
In biomodal v. New England Biolabs, Stearns denied a preliminary injunction in a patent dispute. The plaintiffs had not shown they could meet demand if their competitor left the market, weakening their claims of irreparable harm and public benefit.
“plaintiffs' inability to convincingly demonstrate their capacity to scale up production to meet the vacuum that an injunction would create in the current market demand is a near-fatal concession on this prong of the injunctive standard.”
In United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Stearns held that the three later incidents alleged in the amended complaint were too isolated to plausibly show continuing institutional noncompliance with Title VI.
“the court finds them, singly and collectively, to be too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day.”
Procedural preferences
Faced with combined 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions he decides jurisdiction first, per First Circuit practice.
“When faced with motions to dismiss under both 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), a district court, absent good reason to do otherwise, should ordinarily decide the 12(b)(1) motion first.”
He treats affirmative defenses as not properly resolved on summary judgment: the correct vehicle is a Rule 12(f) motion to strike; equitable affirmative defenses he leaves for the court on a full record.
“The proper vehicle by which to object to an affirmative defense is a motion to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and not by way of a motion for summary judgment sounding in law.”
In Groden v. NASDI, Stearns held that NASDI waived its objection to a pension withdrawal-liability assessment by failing to raise its statutory exemption through the required arbitration process.
“By failing to raise the applicability of the exemption in Sec. 1383(b) in an arbitration proceeding, NASDI has waived 'any objection to the withdrawal liability assessed by the plan.'”
Cautions
In Priolo v. Town of Kingston, Stearns denied a motion to dismiss First Amendment claims without prejudice because he considered summary disposition of those claims premature; he gave the plaintiffs a choice between dropping the federal claims and taking limited discovery.
“the court is, however, sensitive to the fact that summary dispositions are to be approached cautiously when a complaint involves an alleged violation of First Amendment rights.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“The court accordingly GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED and defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment against NASDI on all claims and close the case.”
“summary judgment will be ALLOWED in favor of plaintiffs with respect to Count II and Counterclaim I. The court will DISMISS Counterclaim II for lack of jurisdiction. The parties' motions for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses are DENIED.”
“The parties' motions for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses are DENIED.”
“the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Counts I, II, and III are dismissed, and Counts IV and VI shall, for time being, proceed to factual discovery.”
“the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.”
“defendants' motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED and plaintiffs' cross-motion is DENIED. The Clerk will enter judgment for defendants and close the case.”
“defendants' motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED and plaintiffs' cross-motion is DENIED.”
“defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs will file a notice of election with the court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.”
“Novi's motion for a preliminary injunction is ALLOWED. Earth is restrained from disposing of goods manufactured by Novi. Novi is ordered to give security in the amount of $50,000.”
“The TRO will convert to a preliminary injunction, and defendants' motion to dissolve the TRO is DENIED.”
“the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is ALLOWED. Kittle is preliminarily enjoined until February 5, 2026, or until further order from the Court, from: 1. Directly or indirectly, rendering services to ... any entity that ... markets any genomic profiling testing services ... competitive with the products or services of FMI”
“BioPoint's motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“The court agrees, particularly given its finding that the discovery rule precludes a grant of summary judgment at this time. ... For the foregoing reasons, BSC’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED without 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 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Stearns: 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 Stearns with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stearns, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stearns's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace