Harvey Bartle III
How Judge Bartle rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bartle
Harvey Bartle III is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. President George H. W. Bush appointed him, and he received his commission on September 16, 1991. He served as chief judge from 2006 to 2011 and took senior status on October 1, 2011.
Judge Bartle's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bartle, 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.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Do not use correspondence instead of formal contested or substantive motions.
“Judge Bartle does not permit correspondence in lieu of formal discovery or contested motions or other substantive matters which should be made of record.”
Filing
Deliver chambers a copy of filed motions and briefs.
“A copy of same shall be delivered to Judge Bartle's chambers, including documents which are”
Motions
Opposition briefs are limited to 25 pages and reply briefs to 15 pages.
“no brief in opposition shall exceed twenty-five (25) pages and no reply brief shall exceed fifteen (15) pages.”
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 Bartle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Cautions
At the pleading stage in a construction dispute, the court let most claims continue after emphasizing that discovery had not begun.
“This case is in its very early stage. No discovery has taken place.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the partial motion of defendants to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED in part”
“the motion of defendant for summary judgment (Doc. # 27) is GRANTED”
“the motion of Philly Shipyard, Inc., Greg Tucker, and Keith Russel (the ‘Shipyard Defendants’) to dismiss the complaint as to them (Doc. # 16) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“the motion of defendants Barbara Herbst and Hannah Jenkins for summary judgment is GRANTED”
“The partial motion of Defendant Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC to dismiss and strike Count III of the complaint alleging negligence (Doc. #11) is GRANTED; and (2) The partial motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED”
“the motion of defendants Meridian Bank and Meridian Bank Corporation for summary judgment (Doc. # 34) is GRANTED”
“The motion of plaintiff Beatrice Frank for partial summary judgement (Doc. # 49) is DENIED”
“The motion of defendants Krapf Group, Inc., Janet Moran, and Melissa Lichty for summary judgment (Doc. # 47) is GRANTED”
“the motion of defendant Frank DeSimone to dismiss the complaint as to him under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 9) is hereby GRANTED”
“The motion of plaintiff Apogee Wausau Group, Inc. d/b/a Wausau Window and Wall Systems (‘Wausau’) for summary judgment (Doc. # 38) is GRANTED as to the counterclaim of PMC Property Group, Inc. (‘PMC’), to the extent that the counterclaim asserts a claim under the First Amendment, but Wausau’s motion is otherwise DENIED”
“The motion of defendant and counterclaimant PMC Property Group, Inc. (‘PMC’) for partial summary judgment (Doc. # 39) is DENIED”
“The motion of defendant Methodist Services to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. # 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“the motion of CP Philly West, LLC and Columbia Sussex Corporation to dismiss the breach of contract counterclaims of Paragon Wireless Group, Inc. (Doc. # 30) is DENIED”
“The motion of Apogee Wausau Group, Inc. to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 3.0 days (N = 12).
The selected cases include personal injury, employment, copyright, consumer credit, insurance, and contract disputes. The small, nonrandom sample 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 | 862 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 862 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 836 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 805 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 759 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 692 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 563 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 510 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 669 |
| Mar 2022 | 4 | 409 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 92 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Bartle: 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 Bartle with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bartle, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bartle's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace