Anita Blumstein Brody
How Judge Brody rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brody
Anita Blumstein Brody is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. President George H. W. Bush appointed her, and she received her commission on October 2, 1992. She previously served on the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and took senior status on June 8, 2009.
Judge Brody's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brody, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Policies and Procedures ↗
- Scheduling Order ↗
- Notice ↗
- Civil Bench Trial Scheduling Order ↗
- Civil Jury Trial Scheduling Order ↗
- Criminal Trial Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Motions
Briefs and memoranda may not exceed 35 pages without authorization.
“Briefs or memoranda of law filed with the court must not exceed 35 pages unless otherwise authorized by the court.”
Motions
A surreply is automatically allowed for a Rule 56 motion; other surreplies require leave.
“For a Rule 56 motion, a surreply is automatically allowed. For all other motions, surreply briefs are discouraged and a party must move for leave to file a surreply.”
Conferences
File the joint proposed discovery plan at least three days before the initial pretrial conference.
“counsel must submit a joint proposed discovery plan via ECF to the court no later than 3 days prior to the conference.”
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 8, 2026).
- Standing Order on Procedure for Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Access and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Filing Procedures in Alien Detainee Cases ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Guilty Pleas and Sentencing ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Document Submission for Unrepresented Litigants ↗
- Standing Procedural Order for Cases Seeking Social Security Review ↗
- Superseding Standing Order on Procedural Matters in Pro Se Civil and Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Access to Civil and Criminal Transcripts ↗
How Judge Brody decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Cautions
In a later arbitration-award dispute, the court required evidence of an agreement to arbitrate through the parties’ written exchanges.
“Jiangsu Beier has failed to show that the parties agreed to arbitrate through an exchange of letters.”
In Vail, Brody deferred a personal-jurisdiction objection until discovery could clarify the individual defendant’s compensation and termination role. The ruling permitted the defendant to renew the objection after discovery.
“Mr. Bradley will be free to renew his jurisdictional objection following discovery.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc #29) is DENIED”
“Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. No. 40 & 41) are GRANTED”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. # 8) to State Court is GRANTED”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 4) is DENIED as moot”
“Defendant Batcho’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 19) is DENIED as follows”
“Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED”
“Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is DENIED without prejudice”
“Wells Fargo’s Motion (1) to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss and, (2) If the Motion to Dismiss is Denied, to Limit Initial Discovery to the Threshold Merits Issue of Actionable Violations of the Fair Housing Act During the Two Year Statute of Limitations Period (ECF No. 53) is DENIED”
“Defendant Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 4) is DENIED”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (construed as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) (ECF No. 37) is DENIED”
“IKEA’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
“Defendants City of Philadelphia and Lt. Jonah Conway’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 37.5 days (N = 14).
The sampled cases include employment, product liability, consumer credit, foreclosure, and contract disputes. Their small, nonrandom selection does not establish a 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 | 2 | 337 |
| Mar 2025 | 24 | 342 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 434 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 437 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 436 |
| Mar 2023 | 10 | 431 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 432 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 427 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 424 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 421 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 416 |
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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Brody: 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 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,952 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,834 | 4.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 898 | 10 months |
| Closed during trial | 46 | 17.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,200 | 4.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,595 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,221 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 5,245 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,686 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,374 | 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 Brody with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brody, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brody's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace