Timothy J. Savage
How Judge Savage rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Savage
Timothy J. Savage is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. President George W. Bush appointed him to the court, and he received his commission on August 1, 2002. He took senior status on March 1, 2021. He earned a B.A. from Assumption College and a J.D. from Temple University School of Law.
Judge Savage's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Savage, 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
Contacting chambers
File written case communications as a pleading, motion, or application.
“Written communications concerning any case must be by the filing of a pleading, motion, application, or other similar filing provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Motions
Reply briefs may address opposition points within seven days and are limited to ten pages.
“Reply briefs, addressing only issues raised in the brief in opposition and not repeating arguments in the brief, may be filed within seven days of service of the opponent’s brief in opposition and shall be limited to ten pages.”
Discovery
Begin discovery after receiving notice of the Rule 16 conference, even if motions are pending.
“The parties are required to commence discovery immediately upon receipt of notice of the Rule 16 conference. Pending motions will not excuse counsel from proceeding with discovery.”
Conferences
Lead trial counsel must attend the Rule 16 conference.
“Lead trial counsel, not an associate, must attend the Rule 16 conference.”
Trial
Counsel should prepare to start trial on 48 hours notice if a case enters the trial pool.
“For cases in the trial pool, counsel must be prepared to commence trial upon 48 hours notice.”
Trial
Speaking objections are not permitted.
“Speaking objections are not permitted.”
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 Savage decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A prior state foreclosure judgment foreclosed the federal claim under the jurisdictional doctrine discussed in the opinion.
“Gray’s federal claim is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court judgment.”
The court declined to reduce a fee award further after reviewing objections to a special master’s task-specific reductions.
“The statements made by AIA in its objections to the Report do not justify any further reduction in Avid's fee request.”
In the telephone-solicitation pleading dispute, the court treated text messages as calls covered by the do-not-call provision.
“we conclude that text messages are calls for purposes of Section 227(c) of the TCPA.”
Procedural preferences
After a civil rights jury verdict, the court declined to reduce the judgment against the City by another defendant’s settlement, concluding that contribution would not advance Section 1983’s goals.
“Contribution does not advance the goals of Section 1983. Therefore, we will not reduce the judgment against the City defendants.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“upon consideration of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint (Document No. 8), the plaintiffs’ response and after oral argument, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“upon consideration of defendant Centennial School District’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 49) and the plaintiff’s response, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“upon consideration of Defendant Aramark Sports, LLC’s (‘Aramark’) Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 18), the plaintiff’s response and the defendant’s reply, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt and Sanctions Against Defendants (Doc. 106), the Answer of Richard Cohen and Renee Pearlman (Doc. 109), a hearing on March 13, 2012 to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt and sanctions imposed, and the parties’ submissions (Docs. 116, 117), the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 1.”
“upon consideration of the Motion to Transfer or Stay (Document No. 6), the plaintiff’s response and the defendants’ reply, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Document No. 14) and the plaintiff’s response, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint Due to Improper Venue or, Alternatively, to Transfer Venue (Document No. 4), the plaintiff’s response, the defendant’s reply, and plaintiff’s sur-reply, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U.”
“upon consideration of the Defendant Gregory Knapp’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint or, In the Alternative, to Stay or Transfer the Action (Document No. 12), the plaintiffs’ response, and the defendant’s reply, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“upon consideration of the defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 13), plaintiff’s response (Document No. 14) and defendant’s reply (Document No. 15), it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“upon consideration of the defendant Troyan’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) and the plaintiff’s response, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.”
“upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Document No. 6) and the plaintiff’s response, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) of Defendants, Peter Kang, M.D., and AllBetterCare Urgent Care Center (Document No. 4), plaintiff’s response, the reply and the plaintiff’s response to the reply, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Savage: 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 Savage with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Savage, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Savage's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace