Hugh B. Scott
Judge Scott no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Scott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a dark-web child-pornography investigation, the judge assumed for the sake of argument every deficiency the defendant raised about a remote-search warrant -- including that it may have been void from the start -- and still denied suppression because officers relied on it in good faith, rather than resolving the underlying constitutional questions.
“Magistrate Judge Scott granted, for the sake of argument, every substantive point that Defendant had raised in his motions to suppress: "that the NIT warrant violated Rule 41; that the violation rose to a level of constitutional magnitude; and even that the NIT warrant was void ab initio."”
Facing a suppression motion over evidence and separately over a defendant's post-arrest statements, the judge treated the two requests independently rather than as a package, allowing the physical evidence in while excluding the statements obtained after counsel had directed police not to question the defendant.
“Magistrate Judge Scott issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") recommending a denial of the motion to suppress as to the evidence seized during the warrantless search and a granting of the motion as to Gardin's statements to Officer Kwiatkowski.”
Reviewing a product-liability complaint against a medical-device maker, the judge let claims proceed where the plaintiff could point to a manufacturing-defect theory grounded in the product's design, while dismissing the failure-to-warn and misrepresentation theories that rested on inferences from records never actually examined.
“allowing the first cause of action based on strict liability for a manufacturing defect to proceed; (2) allowing the second cause of action for negligent manufacturing to proceed; (3) dismissing the third and fourth causes of action for failure-to-warn claims based on negligence and strict liability in their entirety”
Procedural preferences
When a government attorney's objections to one of his Reports and Recommendations were largely a copy-and-paste of arguments already made and rejected before him, the reviewing district judge -- applying the same standard the magistrate had set out -- treated that as improper relitigation rather than a specific objection warranting fresh review.
“The government's approach in this regard is strikingly similar to the approach taken by the defendant in Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan ... "It is improper for an objecting party to attempt to relitigate the entire content of the hearing before the Magistrate Judge by submitting papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments."”
On his large consent Social Security appeal docket, the judge issued short scheduling orders setting firm briefing deadlines for the plaintiff's motion, the Commissioner's cross-motion, and any reply, then decided the case on the papers without oral argument unless he specifically found it necessary.
“Plaintiff's Motions due by 10/13/2017, defendant Commissioner's Cross Motions due by 12/12/2017, as well as her Responses due by 12/12/2017. Replies due by 1/2/2018. Motions will be deemed submitted (without oral argument) on 1/2/2018.”
Cautions
In a wrongful-payment case under the False Claims Act, the judge held that a family member's checks written against a deceased benefits recipient's account, using funds the government had continued to deposit after the recipient's death, qualified as actionable "claims" under the Act even without a direct request to the government -- rejecting a narrow reading of what counts as presenting a false claim.
“the plaintiff asks the Court to determine whether or not the defendant's conduct satisfied the "claim" element required under the FCA as a matter of law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the application of defendant to dismiss Count I is denied, but the application to dismiss Count II is granted.”
“plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is granted and defendant's cross-motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment is denied.”
“plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted and the case is dismissed in its entirety.”
“plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint dismissed in its entirety.”
“the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Scott's Report and Recommendation, plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied.”
“United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott issued a Report and Recommendation granting defendants' summary judgment motion on the constructive discharge, compelled self-defamation, and ERISA claims, and denying the motion on the age discrimination claims under ADEA and HRL.”
“Magistrate Judge Scott issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") recommending a denial of the motion to suppress as to the evidence seized during the warrantless search and a granting of the motion as to Gardin's statements to Officer Kwiatkowski.”
“the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.”
“defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Defendant's motion to amend the answer (Dkt. No. 21) is denied.”
“Defendants each have not established that the pre-trial disclosure of the identities of any informants is essential to their respective defenses. This request is denied. ... this Court finds that each defendant is not entitled to a Bill of Particulars from the Government here inasmuch as each defendant is sufficiently advised of the charges against him.”
“on findings different from those in the R & R, the Court adopts the recommendation of the R & R and grants summary judgment to Jamestown.”
“allowing the first cause of action based on strict liability for a manufacturing defect to proceed; (2) allowing the second cause of action for negligent manufacturing to proceed; (3) dismissing the third and fourth causes of action for failure-to-warn claims ... in their entirety; (4) dismissing the fifth cause of action for negligent representation ...”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled docket is dominated by consent-jurisdiction Social Security disability appeals under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), the bulk of his caseload in his final years on the bench, plus a personal-injury case referred to him for pretrial supervision that settled before trial. A much larger volume of report-and-recommendation work for the district's Article III judges across his full 1995-2015 tenure as an active magistrate is reflected in the published-opinion set above but was not separately enumerable as docket entries in the record reviewed.
A historical record
Judge Scott no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.