Edmund Albert Sargus Jr.
How Judge Sargus rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sargus
Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Sargus received a commission on August 1, 1996.
Judge Sargus's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sargus, 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
A civil trial continuance requires an immediate written motion and an affidavit showing exceptional circumstances.
“written motion supported by an affidavit demonstrating exceptional circumstances”
Trial
Civil cases set on the same trial day are tried in filing order; parties in the next case must stay ready for two weeks.
“parties and counsel in the next case shall remain prepared to go to trial on a standby basis for a period of two weeks”
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).
- General Order 24-02 In Re: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- U.S. District Court General Order No. 24-05 ↗
- General Order 23-03 In Re: Automatic Sealing and Procedures for Unsealing of Applications for Search Warrants, Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices, or Court Orders Under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). ↗
How Judge Sargus decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In a civil case, Sargus denied the defendants' request for oral argument after concluding it was not essential to a fair resolution.
“Defendants' Amended Motion Requesting Oral Argument (ECF No. 93) is DENIED and Defendants' original Motion (ECF No. 92) is DENIED as moot ... The Court concludes that oral argument is not essential to the fair resolution of the case.”
In a civil-rights trial, Sargus partially granted a motion to bifurcate punitive damages and ordered a two-stage trial rather than a three-stage trial.
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages. (ECF No. 211). ... The Court will bifurcate this trial, not trifurcate it.”
When a plaintiff sought to drop a nondiverse seller to preserve diversity, required facts and contracts that would allow a Rule 19 dispensability analysis; the request failed because the seller and remaining defendants were tied to the same transaction.
“Because Mr. Mardis and Car Source provide minimal facts and no contracts, the Court cannot conduct a fact-specific analysis to determine whether Car Source is necessary or indispensable under Rule 19.”
Cautions
A motion for reconsideration is denied absent an intervening change in controlling law or clear error; mere disagreement does not suffice.
“the Court DENIES Ancestry's Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 69.) ... a change in Ninth Circuit caselaw is indisputably not a change in controlling law warranting the rare relief sought in a motion for reconsideration ... This Court is only bound by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
In a Title VII suit against Morante and Holzapfel, Sargus dismissed the claims against them with prejudice because individual liability could not be corrected by refiling.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 11) ... Because Defendants' individual liability is not a procedural or technical issue that can be corrected by refiling, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate ... The complaint against Defendants Morante and Holzapfel is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
A stated demand above $75,000 did not establish diversity jurisdiction where the pleaded loss was $2,503 and no supported additional recovery met the jurisdictional amount.
“Mr. Mardis has not alleged facts that demonstrate a probability that the value of his damages exceeds $75,000.”
In Tomlinson’s disability-accommodation suit, Sargus dismissed the claim as untimely because the alleged denial was a discrete act and the continuing-violation doctrine did not extend the filing period.
“Because Mr. Tomlinson has alleged a discrete act rather than ongoing discrimination, the continuing violation doctrine does not affect the limitations period, and his failure-to-accommodate claim remains untimely.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 11) ... Because Defendants' individual liability is not a procedural or technical issue that can be corrected by refiling, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate ... The complaint against Defendants Morante and Holzapfel is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Mr. Little's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED”
“the Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 21) is DENIED AS MOOT ... the Court will not reach the merits of Mr. Little's Motion to Disqualify Counsel.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiff's pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling.”
“the Court DENIES Ancestry's Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 69.) ... a change in Ninth Circuit caselaw is indisputably not a change in controlling law warranting the rare relief sought in a motion for reconsideration ... This Court is only bound by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
“Defendants' Amended Motion Requesting Oral Argument (ECF No. 93) is DENIED and Defendants' original Motion (ECF No. 92) is DENIED as moot ... The Court concludes that oral argument is not essential to the fair resolution of the case.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages. (ECF No. 211). ... The Court will bifurcate this trial, not trifurcate it.”
“the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 40.) ... Rule 59(e) is inapplicable here ... These arguments are essentially an attempt to re-litigate an issue previously considered by the Court and, therefore, do not justify granting Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.”
“Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's August 25, 2020 Order (ECF No. 76) is OVERRULED ... the Magistrate's August 25, 2020 Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
“Defendant's First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED.”
“in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 7.)”
“Mr. Johnson's Rule 29 Motion is denied as to his Count 11 conviction.”
“his motion for a new trial is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED. (ECF No. 37).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Samples from January 2020 through June 2022 and from June 2026 are dominated by member cases in the C.R. Bard hernia-mesh and DuPont C-8 multidistrict litigations. They also include civil-rights, employee-benefits, prisoner, public-records, contract, and federal criminal matters. The samples are illustrative rather than random.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 5 |
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 Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Sargus: 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 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,037 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 810 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 343 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,137 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,153 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,311 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,287 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,012 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,561 | 41.6 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 Sargus with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sargus, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sargus's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace