H. Bruce Guyton
Judge Guyton no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Guyton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In discovery disputes he consistently enforced the local rules' procedural prerequisites strictly: a motion to compel without a verbatim recitation of the disputed discovery requests and responses (Local Rule 37.2) or without a certification of a good-faith meet-and-confer effort (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B)) was denied on that basis alone, without reaching the merits.
“The plaintiffs failed to comply with Local Rule 37.2, which requires motions to compel to 'include, in the motion itself or in an attached memorandum, a verbatim recitation of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, and objection which is the subject of the motion.' On this basis alone, the Court finds that the plaintiffs' motion [Doc. 77] should be denied.”
In Social Security appeals, he closely scrutinized whether an ALJ gave adequate, explained weight to treating-physician opinions under the agency's own regulations, and would recommend reversal when the ALJ selectively considered the record.
“Judge Guyton found that the ALJ had improperly given more weight to Global Assessment Functioning (GAF) scores, rather than according more weight to the treatment records of Drs. Spalding, Rogers, and Narro, all of whom treated the plaintiff, and that his failure to explain fully why he did not accord controlling weight to the controlling physicians' assessments and the entire record violated the Administration's own regulations.”
Procedural preferences
Faced with a mass copyright suit against dozens of unnamed Doe defendants, he applied Rule 20's joinder requirements rigorously, finding that separate, discrete instances of alleged infringement occurring at different times did not amount to a single transaction or occurrence, and severed the case into individual suits rather than allow it to proceed as one.
“The alleged infringements occurred over a span of over six weeks ... and they cannot be classified as a single transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences”
On requests to compel discovery, he would grant relief in incremental, category-by-category form rather than as a single blanket order, distinguishing between document categories that were work product, privileged, or produced in the ordinary course of business.
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Doc. 22] with respect to the request for Sedgwick files regarding the claim and denial of medical care to the plaintiff is GRANTED to the extent that the defendant shall be required to produce the withheld claim log entries up to the point where Sedgwick made a final denial of the plaintiff's claim.”
Cautions
He was willing to grant Fourth Amendment suppression motions in criminal cases when the government's factual showing did not support the officers' entry, even where it meant excluding the strongest evidence in the case.
“law enforcement did not have a reasonable belief that Thomas K. Mackey was inside of the residence at the time of the initial entry, and therefore, all evidence, including the critical evidence of the smell of marijuana, used to obtain the later search warrant, is suppressed”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“for good cause shown, the defendant's Motion to Compel [Doc. 116] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answer to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33 Interrogatories from Timothy Hutchison ... [Doc. 76] is DENIED.”
“the defendants have provided their responses to the discovery requests. [Doc. 101]. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to compel is moot.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 31 Written Questions [Doc. 78] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Knox County to Comply with Plaintiffs' Notice of Depositions of February 24, 2005 and for Fees and Sanctions ... [Doc. 79] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Production of Discovery [Doc. 62] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Order Regarding Discovery of Electronically Stored Information [Doc. 63] is DENIED.”
“the Court is in complete agreement with the magistrate judge's conclusion that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or, alternatively, for Remand to Receive and Consider Additional Evidence [Doc. 15] be DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 17] be GRANTED.”
“the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Guyton's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to Section 636(b)(1); Defendant's Objections (Doc. 49) are OVERRULED; and Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 13) is DENIED.”
“the Court ACCEPTS in whole the R&R [Doc. 5] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Mr. Weitzel's Notice of Removal [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED and this case is REMANDED to the Loudon County General Sessions Court.”
“plaintiffs have recently filed a Motion to Remand [Doc. 10], which this Court DENIES as moot, given our acceptance of the R&R.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 90] is GRANTED on the ground that law enforcement did not have a reasonable belief that Thomas K. Mackey was inside of the residence at the time of the initial entry, and therefore, all evidence ... is suppressed.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. The Motions to Dismiss/Motions to Sever [Docs. 11, 12] be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... 2. All claims, other than the claim of Plaintiff against Doe 1, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“the other pending Motions to Quash Subpoena and/or Motions for Protective Order [Docs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] be GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiff's First Request to Produce [Doc. 22] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum [Doc. 27] is DENIED”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude and for Sanction and Disqualification for Ex Parte Communication with Plaintiff's Treating Physician [Doc. 28] is DENIED”
“the Court OVERRULES defendant's objection [Doc. 86] to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Guyton and ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 76] as it pertains to the defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. 34]. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. 34] is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent that it sought a finding that the Consent Protective Order [Doc. 73] does not bar JTV from issuing subpoenas to Sterling's customers ... The Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks a final order compelling Sterling to produce Requests for Proposals and Responses to Requests for Proposals in its control.”
“the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 13], and it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] is GRANTED and plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9] is DENIED. The ALJ's decision in this case is AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 218 days (N = 5).
His full-tenure docket spans a broad general civil and criminal caseload as both a referral and consent-jurisdiction magistrate: Social Security disability appeals decided directly under the parties' consent, personal-injury and products-liability diversity suits, employment discrimination claims, insurance and commercial contract disputes, prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, and, as a duty magistrate, criminal pretrial motions, search warrants, and detention proceedings. A sampled full-consent personal-injury case (Poullard v. Mitchell, a trucking-accident suit) shows him presiding over general civil litigation from the pleadings stage through a negotiated dismissal before trial.
A historical record
Judge Guyton no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.