William Scott Hardy
How Judge Hardy rules, drawn from 61 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hardy
William Scott Hardy is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Hardy received a commission on July 31, 2020.
Judge Hardy's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hardy, 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
Use a motion and proposed order for requests, apart from the stated discovery-dispute process.
“Except for discovery disputes (see Section II.B(2)), communications with the Court shall be in the form of motions which shall be accompanied by a proposed order specifying the relief requested”
Filing
File through CM/ECF unless a local rule or court order expressly permits otherwise.
“All filings must be made on the District’s CM/ECF electronic filing system unless expressly permitted or directed to do otherwise by the Court’s Local Rules or Order of Court.”
Motions
Dispositive-motion and class-certification briefs are limited to 25 pages without leave.
“Briefs supporting or opposing dispositive motions and briefs supporting or opposing class certification are required but shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages without leave of Court.”
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 Hardy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rentz v. Bisignano, Hardy affirmed a Social Security denial after finding no evidence that Rentz's emotional-support cat was medically necessary.
“there is no other evidence that would show Rentz's cat was ‘medically necessary’”
Procedural preferences
In Canaan v. Carnegie Mellon University, Hardy dismissed one claim without prejudice and allowed time to amend it.
“dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ... Canaan will be afforded time to amend the claim that the Court has dismissed”
In Diebold v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in part on Eleventh Amendment immunity but declined its Heck-bar analysis and supplied his own reasoning.
“The Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 23) as the opinion of the Court in part ... The Court does not adopt the R&R with respect to its analysis of the Heck bar.”
In Lang, he denied a motion to compel arbitration without prejudice and ordered limited discovery because agreement formation was not apparent from the complaint; he permitted a renewed motion after discovery.
“Following limited discovery focused on whether a valid agreement to arbitrate has been formed between the parties, Defendants may file a renewed motion if warranted.”
Cautions
In Brown v. County of Lawrence, Hardy denied the defendants leave to file a Rule 12(c) motion after their late request.
“motion for leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) will be denied”
In Hein v. Master Builders Solutions Admixtures US, LLC, Hardy denied summary judgment and deferred a final spoliation ruling for a fuller record closer to trial.
“while the motion for summary judgment is denied, it is proper to defer a final ruling on the issue of spoliation”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2023, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 29) is DENIED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) filed by defendants is granted in its entirety. The complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Rentz's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8) is DENIED and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 12) is GRANTED.”
“the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 12) is GRANTED.”
“Canaan's Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted insofar as Ms. Canaan's IIED claim is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), but denied with respect to all other claims. ... Canaan will be afforded time to amend the claim that the Court has dismissed, after which time any failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal with prejudice of that claim.”
“Defendants' motion for leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) will be denied. ... (Docket No. 143), which the Court construes as Defendants' motion for leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), is DENIED.”
“19) is GRANTED, and the claims asserted against them are DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ... Should Plaintiff fail to timely file an Amended Complaint, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in the Complaint that are presently being dismissed without prejudice, will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“the motion is DENIED to the extent Plaintiff is seeking summary judgment, and the motion is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole as a Defendant if Plaintiff chooses to file an Amended Complaint.”
“AND NOW, this 25th day of July 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 25) is denied.”
“Brandi's motion to dismiss Dan and Senta's Amended Crossclaim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 41) is DENIED, and her request, in the alternative, to strike Dan and Senta's Request for Relief is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 20) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. No. 77) will be granted, and Defendant shall re-file under seal the unredacted versions of its Memorandum, Concise Statement of Material Facts, and Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Based on the foregoing, Dollar General's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 26) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED, and Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters include a large diisocyanates antitrust multidistrict litigation, wage-and-hour, commercial-contract, insurance, product-liability, civil-rights, and Social Security cases, along with a recent increase in immigration-detention habeas petitions. Several older cases were reassigned to Hardy after he joined the court in 2020.
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 | 35 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 20 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 35 | 20 |
| Sep 2025 | 9 | 18 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 22 |
| Sep 2024 | 27 | 22 |
| Mar 2024 | 24 | 20 |
| Sep 2023 | 30 | 23 |
| Mar 2023 | 24 | 18 |
| Sep 2022 | 22 | 20 |
| Mar 2022 | 19 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 12 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Western District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Hardy: 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 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 665 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 659 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 632 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,871 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,021 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,988 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,891 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,939 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,766 | 6.9 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 Hardy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hardy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hardy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace