Mary Elizabeth "Beth" Phillips
How Judge Phillips rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Phillips
Mary Elizabeth Phillips is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Phillips received a commission on March 22, 2012.
Judge Phillips's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Phillips, 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.
Key rules
Trial
File motions in limine at least ten days before the pretrial conference and responses at least three days before it.
“Motions in limine shall be filed at least ten (10) days prior to the pretrial conference. Responses to motions in limine shall be filed at least three (3) days prior”
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 Phillips decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In McLean’s legal-malpractice suit, Judge Phillips dismissed the intentional-infliction claim because the alleged $60,000 payment and missed appeal deadline, although potentially actionable as contract or malpractice claims, did not describe sufficiently outrageous conduct.
“This is not to say that breach of contract and malpractice are not actionable wrongs; however, not everything that is actionable is outrageous enough to give rise to an IIED claim.”
In GP3 II v. Bank of the West, the court granted a temporary restraining order against a draw on a standby letter of credit. Applying the Dataphase factors, it found GP3 likely to prove material fraud based on evidence that the invoiced steel pipe did not exist, and required a $21 million bond.
“While ‘a court must consider all of the factors to determine whether the balance weighs toward granting the injunctive relief,’ the likelihood of success on the merits is the most significant factor.”
In the reviewed antitrust dismissal, she treated constitutional standing and the merits pleading requirements separately: the plaintiffs had Article III standing but had not alleged the parallel conduct needed for one claim.
“Plaintiffs have Article III standing to assert their claims. However, Count I, the Sherman Act Claim, is dismissed”
In three consolidated Medicaid-provider cases, she remanded proceedings removed from Missouri’s administrative hearing commission because the removal statute permits removal from a state court, not that commission. A removal argument should establish that the source tribunal is a court under state law.
“The Court believes the straightforward and ordinary interpretation of the word ‘court’ is correct, and it rejects the functional approach Defendants advocate.”
Procedural preferences
In McLean v. Bruce, the court denied leave to file a second amended complaint after the scheduling deadline. It found that the plaintiff had not shown diligence under Rule 16(b)(4), and that the proposed pleading added new claims unrelated to the defendant's motion to dismiss.
“Rule 16(b)(4) states that good cause is required to amend a Scheduling Order, and the Court of Appeals has emphasized that there is rarely good cause if the party requesting the scheduling change has not been diligent.”
In McLean, Judge Phillips considered Bruce’s challenge to two claims after he had answered because his answer preserved the failure-to-state-a-claim defense and the Rule 12(c) motion was timely enough not to delay trial.
“Thus, because the same standard governs motions filed under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c), and because a Rule 12(c) motion can be filed after an Answer is filed so long as the motion is filed early enough that it does not delay the trial, the Court can consider Bruce’s arguments.”
In a 2026 consolidated data-breach action, the court rejected informal requests to amend after partial dismissal because the plaintiffs did not supply proposed changes. A party seeking leave should present the proposed pleading or its substance.
“Such ‘fleeting references to amendment are insufficient,’”
Cautions
A traffic stop remains valid despite an officer's investigative motive when an observed violation supplies an objective basis, and developed reasonable suspicion can justify extending the stop for a dog sniff.
“fact that Defendant was speeding justified the stop, regardless of any other motives Deputy Malone or TFO Miller may have had.”
In Winder’s suppression case, Judge Phillips adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation after finding that the hotel manager’s decision to evict Winder ended his privacy interest before police entered the room with the manager’s consent, even though Winder had not yet been physically excluded.
“Justifiable eviction terminates a hotel occupant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the room.”
After repeated notice and extensions, she dismissed an unserved defendant without prejudice under Rule 4(m). File proof of service on the named defendant by the deadline; service on other defendants does not establish it.
“pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ginnie Mae is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
In one emergency request involving pending state juvenile and probate proceedings, the court declined to direct state judges or halt their hearings. The requested federal relief would interfere with state judicial functions.
“Such directives would interfere with the state courts’ ability to perform judicial function and are prohibited by Younger.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 142), is DENIED, and the First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 92), remains Plaintiff’s operative pleading.”
“Bruce’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 133), is GRANTED, and Defendant Jeffrey Bruce is granted judgment on Counts IV and V.”
“The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Motion to Conduct Discovery is DENIED. Dancing Cow Farms is not an entity capable of being sued, so it is dismissed. However, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts demonstrating that Emily Winchester is subject to jurisdiction in this Court, so her request to be dismissed is denied.”
“The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Motion to Conduct Discovery is DENIED.”
“For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS GP3’s motion for a TRO and hereby enjoins Defendants from drawing on the SBLC or assigning their rights to a third party. GP3 is directed to post a $21,000,000.00 bond.”
“The Amended Joint Motion for Judgment and Disbursement of Funds, (Doc. 68), is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Judge Rush’s R&R, and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 17.)”
“Judge Gaddy’s Report is adopted in its entirety, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for a Bill of Particulars, (Doc. 130), is DENIED.”
“The Court therefore (1) adopts the Report and Recommendation, (2) denies Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and (3) dismisses the case without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Commissioner's final decision is affirmed.”
“Because Plaintiff's original Complaint is absent any factual or legal basis for the wrong asserted, his in forma pauperis status is now revoked. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.”
“the Court adopts the Report as the Order of the Court and denies the Motion to Suppress.”
“the Motions, (Docs. 160, 162), are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, not for Judge Phillips: 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 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 520 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 876 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 19 | 49.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,461 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,502 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,738 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,341 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,312 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,485 | 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 Phillips with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Phillips, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Phillips's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace