Terrence George Berg
How Judge Berg rules, drawn from 42 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Berg
Terrence George Berg is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Berg received a commission on December 7, 2012.
Judge Berg's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Berg, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Practice Guidelines ↗
- Sample Motion to Seal ↗
- Exhibit Form ↗
- Notice and Order Setting Scheduling Conference in a Patent Infringement Case ↗
- Model Rule 26(f) Report and Proposed Scheduling Order for Patent Infringement Cases ↗
- Timeline of Model Scheduling Order ↗
- Default Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Until further notice, courtesy copies shall not be submitted unless specifically requested by the Court.
“Until further notice, courtesy copies shall not be submitted unless specifically requested by the Court.”
Conferences
The parties are required to submit a Rule 26(f) plan and/or a Case Summary as described in the Notice no later than one business day prior to the initial scheduling conference.
“The parties are required to submit a Rule 26(f) plan and/or a Case Summary as described in the Notice no later than one business day prior to the initial scheduling conference.”
Sealing
When parties in a civil or criminal case seek to file materials under seal, they must file a motion to request an order from the Court permitting sealing—unless sealing is otherwise authorized by statute or rule.
“When parties in a civil or criminal case seek to file materials under seal, they must file a motion to request an order from the Court permitting sealing—unless sealing is otherwise authorized by statute or rule.”
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 8, 2026).
- Procedures for Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order for Discovery and Inspection and Fixing Motion Cut-Off Date in Criminal Cases ↗
- Pro Se Filings (Revised & Amended) ↗
- Filing a New Civil Case or Civil Initiating Papers Under Seal ↗
How Judge Berg decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In St. Clair’s employment case, close timing between workplace complaints and termination helped make a Title VII retaliation claim plausible at the pleading stage.
“Because St. Clair’s claim of retaliatory discharge under Title VII is plausible based upon her allegations, Fox Run’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must be DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In Robinson v. NCAA, he dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and unjust-enrichment claims as time-barred because they had not shown fraudulent concealment sufficient for equitable tolling.
“Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims could not be equitably tolled because there was no showing of fraudulent concealment, so too is Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim barred. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely.”
In Frazier v. Commissioner of Social Security, he adopted an unopposed magistrate judge recommendation, explaining that the district court was not obligated to review the record independently when neither party objected.
“Where, as here, neither party objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. ... the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Cautions
A request to pay non-class counsel from a class settlement fund needs proof that their work independently benefited the class. In the Chevrolet Bolt settlement, the court denied an additional fee request where that showing was absent and payment would reduce the members’ distribution.
“LG Defendants fail to demonstrate that HOP provided a substantial and independent benefit to the Settlement Class to entitle it to fees”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 38, 40, are GRANTED. ... The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 39, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class, ECF No. 29, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant City of Detroit’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as it relates to ... Plaintiff’s Title VII religious discrimination and related hostile work environment claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of (1) Plaintiff’s ADA disability discrimination and related hostile work environment claims ...; and (2) Plaintiff’s federal claims as untimely.”
“Commissioner Andrew Saul’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff Terrance Frazier’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated on the Record during the January 31, 2021 Hearing, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 13) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's ELCRA claim is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED.”
“It is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim and DENIED as to Plaintiff's discrimination claim.”
“For the reasons explained above, the motions to exclude the opinions of Dr. Bradley L. Edgar (ECF No. 121), Edward Stockton (ECF Nos. 119/120), Steven Gaskin and Colin Weir (ECF No. 122), and Ryan Harrington (ECF Nos. 124/125) are DENIED.”
“For the reasons explained below, the motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 47) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons explained above, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. The case will proceed in the ordinary course.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters include False Claims Act, antitrust, employment-discrimination, Social Security, criminal, and civil-forfeiture cases. Warrant and miscellaneous duty matters are excluded from the merits mix. This is a descriptive sample, not a complete caseload count.
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 | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 20 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 9 | 15 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 18 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 23 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 13 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 14 |
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 Eastern District of Michigan, not for Judge Berg: 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 | 2,926 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 410 | 2.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,246 | 4.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,252 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 18 | 35.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,926 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,615 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,616 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,541 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,405 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,677 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,237 | 8.6 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 Berg with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Berg, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Berg's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace