Herman J. Weber
How Judge Weber rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Weber
Herman J. Weber is a senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, he received his commission on April 4, 1985, and took senior status on January 1, 2002. He previously served on the Greene County Court of Common Pleas and the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals.
Judge Weber's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Weber, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Joint Final Pretrial Order ↗
- Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order - Rule 26(f) ↗
- Trial Procedural Order ↗
- Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Motions
A party filing a dispositive motion must email a courtesy copy and proposed findings and conclusions to chambers, and serve the proposed findings and conclusions on opposing counsel.
“Upon filing a dispositive motion, the Proponent of the motion shall file ELECTRONICALLY with the Court, deliver a courtesy copy to Chambers via e:mail at [email protected] and serve upon opposing counsel Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which support the dispositive motion.”
Motions
Nondispositive motions must state whether the parties conferred and whether the motion is opposed.
“All non-dispositive motions shall include a Statement of Conference indicating whether the motion is opposed or unopposed.”
Trial
The parties must submit trial exhibits to the court five business days before the final pretrial conference.
“All documents, photographs and other materials expected to be used at Trial shall be SUBMITTED TO THE COURT 5 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE”
Trial
When the parties list more than ten witnesses combined, they must provide a detailed binding summary of each witness’s testimony.
“When more than a combined total of 10 witnesses are listed to testify at trial, a detailed and binding summary of the testimony of each witness shall be submitted.”
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 Weber decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Expert objections directed to weight rather than admissibility can be tested before the factfinder; the court left open a trial inquiry into the disputed documents.
“Defendants’ arguments go largely to the weight to be afforded the experts’ opinions rather than to the admissibility of the opinions.”
Procedural preferences
When the pleadings request depended on evidence outside the pleadings, the court converted it to summary judgment and gave both parties an opportunity to submit pertinent material.
“the defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to one for summary judgment under Rule 56, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Both parties are given an opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.”
Cautions
General objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation received no separate response where the court found no particularized argument.
“present no particularized arguments that warrant specific responses by this Court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (doc. 93) and motion for relief from continuing fraud and to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s proposed expert witnesses (doc. 95) are DENIED.”
“DENIES the Motion to Dismiss for improper venue and for inconvenient forum pursuant to the discussion placed on the record.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply (doc. no. 47) is rendered MOOT and is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunctive Relief (doc. no. 4) is DENIED;”
“DesMarais’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 14) is GRANTED and all claims against that defendant are DISMISSED;”
“Defendant Pierce’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Case: 1:12-cv-00285-MRB Doc #: 45 Filed: 09/24/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID> 2 plaintiff’s claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment is DENIED.”
“plaintiff’s motion to strike the Bill of Costs is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. no. 59) is construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment and is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is GRANTED in favor of defendant.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 5) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments claim based on alleged overcrowding and double celling. The motion is DENIED as to plaintiff’s First Amendment claim”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 24) is GRANTED;”
“plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order/Motion for Separation Order (doc. no. 7) is DENIED;”
“defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 30) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. no. 4) and plaintiff’s Motion for Notice of Appeal in forma pauperis (doc. no. 7) are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The selected older matters span employment and other civil rights, Social Security review, insurance, copyright, personal injury, and contract disputes. Their sparse public timelines do not support a representative caseload mix.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Weber: 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 Weber with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Weber, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Weber's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace