R. Barclay Surrick
How Judge Surrick rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Surrick
Richard Barclay Surrick is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Surrick received a commission on June 5, 2000. Judge Surrick assumed senior status on February 1, 2011.
Judge Surrick's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Surrick, 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
Filing
Send chambers copies of motion papers that exceed 50 pages and are not wholly filed with exhibits electronically.
“Judge Surrick requests that copies of motion papers be sent to Chambers when the original is not wholly filed (with exhibits) on the ECF system and when the motion paper exceeds 50 pages.”
Motions
Use reply and surreply briefs only when needed to call attention to previously uncited controlling authority.
“Reply and surreply briefs should be filed only when absolutely necessary and only in circumstances where the parties wish to draw Judge Surrick=s attention to controlling authority not previously cited by the parties.”
Conferences
Discuss a discovery or scheduling dispute with opposing counsel, then send a letter stating both sides’ positions before asking for a telephone conference.
“Prior to requesting a telephone conference, counsel should discuss the dispute with other counsel and send Judge Surrick a letter setting forth his or her position and the position of opposing counsel.”
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 Surrick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an ADA retaliation claim arising from an accommodation request, Surrick declined to resolve the employee’s good faith at the pleading stage where the complaint did not establish that the request was unreasonable or made in bad faith.
“Without making credibility determinations and at this early juncture, we cannot determine that Plaintiff made his request for an accommodation unreasonably or in bad faith to dismiss the claim.”
In a construction-defect dispute, Surrick sent the insulation and water-damage claims forward where competing expert testimony left causation and the contractor’s standard of care genuinely disputed.
“The competing expert testimony between Isackson—who opined the insulation was not code-compliant and caused damage to the parapet walls—and Carlsen, who disagreed, presents a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the attic’s insulation gap contributed to the Home’s water damage, and if so, whether Red Lion’s insulation work was negligent. We cannot resolve the issue on summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
In a slip-and-fall action, Surrick treated a $150,000 demand in a case-management memorandum as sufficient notice of the amount in controversy, making a later removal untimely despite subsequent admissions responses.
“Defendants’ ability to ascertain the removability of this case did not depend on the information contained in Plaintiff’s subsequent responses to the Requests for Admissions.”
Cautions
In a police-pursuit injury case, Surrick granted the city summary judgment where the plaintiffs did not produce evidence of a policy or custom allowing unauthorized pursuits or identify a specific training failure, while denying the officer’s summary-judgment motion.
“The record contains no evidence that the City had a policy or custom of permitting officers to engage in pursuits.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“upon consideration of Defendant Johnson Controls Fire Protection LP's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20), Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition (ECF No. 21), and Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 22), it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.”
“upon consideration of Defendant City of Philadelphia's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and Plaintiff Linda Trush's Opposition thereto (ECF No. 5), it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.”
“upon consideration of Defendant Power Quality Sciences, Inc.'s and Defendant Derek Sweat's joint Motion to Supplement their individual Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Powervar, Inc. t/a AMETEK Powervar's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15) ... it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion is DENIED.”
“upon consideration of Defendant United States Department of Education's Motion for Summary Judgment (Mot., ECF No. 38), and Plaintiff's response thereto, it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Remand is GRANTED; and”
“Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 5), Defendant Goodleap, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation (ECF No. 6), ... are DENIED as MOOT;”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II (ADA discrimination) and III of the Complaint is granted without prejudice. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count II (ADA retaliation) is denied.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Comcast’s motion will be granted. Accordingly, Lu’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”
“Rockwell’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to: (i) Plaintiffs’ claim for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act in Count I, and (ii) Plaintiffs’ claim under the Catch-All Provision in Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (‘UTPCPL’), 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-2(4)(xxi), in Count II except as to post-contractual representations regarding Plaintiffs’ decks. Rockwell’s Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise DENIED.”
“VFREG’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to: (i) Plaintiffs’ claim under the UTPCPL’s Catch-All Provision in Count II except as to post-contractual representations regarding Plaintiffs’ decks, and (ii) Plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation and/or concealment claim in Count IV except as to post-contractual representations regarding Plaintiffs’ decks. VFREG’s Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT is entered in favor of Plaintiff US Bortek, LLC and against Defendant Oz Directional Drilling, Inc. in the total amount of $878,302.16 as detailed in the accompanying Memorandum.”
“upon consideration Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 42), and all documents submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.”
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 | 34 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 34 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 35 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 36 | 11 |
| Sep 2024 | 25 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 25 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 64 | 17 |
| Mar 2023 | 55 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 33 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 23 | 12 |
| Sep 2021 | 17 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 29 | 9 |
| Sep 2020 | 17 | 9 |
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 Surrick: 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 Surrick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Surrick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Surrick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace