Walter H. Rice
How Judge Rice rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rice
Walter H. Rice is a senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, where he has served since 1980. He was chief judge from October 1996 through October 2003 and took senior status in November 2004. He earned degrees from Northwestern University and Columbia University, including a law degree and a master’s degree in business administration.
Judge Rice's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Rice, 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.
Key rules
Discovery
The report addresses the scope of discovery, discovery limits, expert disclosures, electronically stored information, privilege, discovery cutoff, dispositive motions, alternative dispute resolution, and settlement timing.
“The case presents the following issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced:”
Conferences
File the Rule 26(f) report no later than seven days before the preliminary pretrial conference.
“days prior to the preliminary”
Conferences
The parties provide recommended dates for dispositive motions and other scheduling events in the report.
“Recommended dispositive motion date:”
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 Rice decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sherrod, Rice denied Wal-Mart's motion to exclude Gary White's training and staffing testimony, finding that perceived shortcomings could be tested on cross-examination and weighed by the jury.
“any perceived shortcomings in his opinion as to the adequacy of training and staffing policies (a) may be addressed by Wal-Mart on cross-examination; and (b) go to the weight afforded the evidence, a jury determination.”
Procedural preferences
In a habeas matter, applies the Rule 60 timing and jurisdiction limits before reopening a terminated case.
“Petitioner cannot sustain a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) because his motion was filed more than one year after the entry of judgment.”
Cautions
In Bushman v. Vance, Rice dismissed the complaint without prejudice after the plaintiff missed the service deadline and did not answer a show-cause order. He found dismissal mandated because the plaintiff had shown no good cause for the failure to serve.
“Because Plaintiff has not timely served Defendants and has not shown good cause for the failure to do so, dismissal is mandated.”
In the reviewed sentence-correction case, the court rejected use of Section 3582(c)(2) to attack a conviction from another case; the procedure addresses a retroactive guideline reduction, not that collateral challenge.
“is not the proper vehicle to challenge the validity of a conviction in a previous case;”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Wal-Mart's Motion (Doc. #347) is OVERRULED.”
“OVERRULES Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Relief from Judgment. Doc. #40.”
“The Parties' Joint Stipulation for an Award of Attorney's Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act(Doc. 16) is accepted”
Rice dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants. This contextual dismissal is retained as a signed order and excluded from motion statistics.
“Alili's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #32) is OVERRULED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #18) is SUSTAINED.”
“the Court SUSTAINS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Doc. #12.”
“The Court also SUSTAINS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Doc. #19.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #24) is SUSTAINED”
“its Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #25) is OVERRULED”
“their Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. #70) is SUSTAINED”
“their Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #66) is OVERRULED AS MOOT.”
“Because Defendants' prior motions were filed in response to now-superseded Complaints, they are OVERRULED AS MOOT”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply, Doc. #14, is SUSTAINED.”
“the Court SUSTAINS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Doc. #8.”
“Defendant's First Motion (Doc. #36) and Second Motion (Doc. #37) to Correct Sentence Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(2) are OVERRULED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The selected matters span Social Security, labor, habeas, immigration, criminal, trademark, civil-rights, housing, and contract records. This fixed sample does not establish a courtwide caseload mix.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Rice: 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 Rice with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rice, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rice's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace