Yvette Kane
How Judge Kane rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kane
Yvette Kane is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Kane received a commission on October 22, 1998. Judge Kane assumed senior status on October 11, 2018.
Judge Kane's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kane, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Communicate with the court by formal motion except for discovery disputes.
“Judge Kane prefers that counsel communicate with the court through formal motion, except as noted below for discovery disputes.”
Filing
Do not deliver courtesy copies to chambers.
“Courtesy copies are not required and should not be delivered to chambers.”
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).
How Judge Kane decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to a punitive-damages claim in a personal-injury case, allegations that a defendant knowingly violated safety regulations and disregarded a foreseeable risk were enough to plausibly plead recklessness, even without an expert or discovery record yet developed.
“Plaintiff's allegations permit the inference of punitive damages because Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to ensure the safety of the Railroad Crossing under the applicable regulations and through training of John Doe Conductors #1-10.”
In an employment-discrimination case decided at summary judgment, a plaintiff's own conjecture about a decisionmaker's credibility or motive, unsupported by record evidence tying it to the case at hand, does not create a triable pretext issue.
“Plaintiff presents only his own conjecture as to Mr. Peck's credibility, in addition to evidence of a reprimand unrelated in substance and temporal proximity to the present action.”
Procedural preferences
In Ganoe v. Hegseth, Kane denied a request to seal summary-judgment exhibits because the defendant had not made the showing required to overcome public access. She separately allowed redacted comparator records and sealed their unredacted versions after reviewing the specific privacy interests.
“Defendant's motion and responses to the Court fail to provide the information necessary for this Court to conduct the 'factfinding and balancing of competing interest[s] required before the strong presumption of openness can be overcome by the secrecy interests of private litigants.'”
In Klatch-Maynard v. Sugarloaf Township, Kane excluded the plaintiffs' expert testimony after they missed the report deadline by years and had done nothing to cure the omission.
“Plaintiffs have been on notice of their failure to file expert reports for well over two years and have done nothing to cure the problem. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' actions constitute a flagrant disregard of the Court's discovery order and border on willful deception.”
In Whyte v. Centre County Correctional Facility, Kane dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s motion to compel as premature.
“IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs motion to compel (Doc. No. 15) is DISMISSED as premature.”
Cautions
In Arroyo v. McGinley, Kane dismissed a prisoner's Section 1983 complaint with leave to amend because it lacked allegations showing the named defendants' personal involvement in a deprivation of his rights.
“the Court finds that there is a complete absence of allegations in Plaintiff's complaint that would give rise to a plausible inference that Defendants were personally involved in any asserted deprivation of his federally protected rights.”
In Bolden v. Ry, Kane found that the complaint did not allege an unconstitutional Aramark policy or custom that could support a Section 1983 claim against the contractor.
“Bolden does not allege any facts demonstrating an unconstitutional policy or custom by Aramark that would potentially establish a plausible Section 1983 suit against it.”
In Zygmunt v. Snyder, the complaint did not plead facts showing that the regional police department was a separate legal entity that could face Section 1983 liability. Kane allowed amendment of that claim; her signed memorandum announced dismissal of the consortium claim with prejudice.
“Plaintiffs here have failed to plead facts sufficient to plausibly suggest that the NYRPD is a distinct legal entity subject to Section 1983 liability.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court will deny Defendant's motion to seal and submit documentation in camera, construed as a motion for leave to file exhibits under seal (Doc. No. 81), and direct Defendant to file Docket Number 82 on the public docket.”
“the Court will grant Defendant's motion to submit redacted documents and grant Defendant's motion to seal the unredacted version of the documents, filed provisionally under seal at Docket Number 89.”
“the Court will grant Defendant's most recent motion for extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 90)”
“deny Defendant's prior motion for extension of time as moot (Doc. No. 85)”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendant's motion in its entirety.”
“the Court will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part. The Court will also grant Gorrio leave to file an amended complaint as to only those claims identified in the prior section of this Memorandum as amendable claims.”
“Petitioner Anthony Johnson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (Doc. No. 100) is DENIED”
“A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 86) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks to preclude recovery for damage to Plaintiff's property. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED in all other respects.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED.”
“Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part and Timmons's motion to convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment will be denied as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' motion in limine (Doc. No. 106) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are precluded from presenting any expert testimony at trial.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED as premature”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 107.5 days (N = 8).
- The sampled dockets spanned prisoner civil-rights suits (often resolved through motions to dismiss or summary judgment after referral to a magistrate for pretrial management), employment discrimination and ADA claims, a labor-arbitration review action, a personal-injury suit against a county jail, and general civil litigation.
- Several sampled employment cases resolved through court-annexed mediation and settlement without a contested ruling, consistent with a civil docket where most cases resolve before judgment.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 9 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 23 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 16 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 14 | 13 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 5 |
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 Middle District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Kane: 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 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 660 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 901 | 10.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 21 | 39.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,535 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,370 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,550 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,420 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,410 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,611 | 11 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 Kane with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kane, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kane's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace