Thomas A. Varlan
How Judge Varlan rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Varlan
Thomas A. Varlan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Varlan received a commission on March 14, 2003.
Judge Varlan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Varlan, 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.
- Judicial Preferences ↗
- Scheduling Order (PDF) ↗
- Instructions to Counsel for Closing Arguments (PDF) ↗
Key rules
Motions
Judge Varlan considers requests for oral argument on a case by case basis and may set a motion for oral argument even absent a request by the parties.
“Judge Varlan considers requests for oral argument on a case by case basis and may set a motion for oral argument even absent a request by the parties.”
Discovery
Judge Varlan's scheduling order outlines a three-step process for the resolution of discovery disputes as follows: (1) the parties are to meet and confer among themselves in an effort to resolve; (2) an informal conference is to be arranged with the magistrate judge assigned to the case; and (3) the filing of written motion with the court.
“Judge Varlan's scheduling order outlines a three-step process for the resolution of discovery disputes as follows: (1) the parties are to meet and confer among themselves in an effort to resolve; (2) an informal conference is to be arranged with the magistrate judge assigned to the case; and (3) the filing of written motion with the court.”
Trial
Motions in limine are generally considered at the final pretrial conference.
“Generally, such motions will be considered at the final pretrial conference.”
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 Varlan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jones v. Wright, Varlan denied Rule 60(b) relief after finding the plaintiffs repeated earlier claims and had not established new evidence or extraordinary circumstances.
“the party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing the grounds for such relief by clear and convincing evidence.”
In New York Life Insurance Co. v. Robinette, Varlan dismissed a claimant’s crossclaim with prejudice after finding the law already dictated its failure and renewed litigation would unfairly burden the other parties.
“when the law clearly dictates a result for the defendant, it is unfair to subject him to continued exposure to potential liability by dismissing the case without prejudice.”
On an Interstate Agreement on Detainers speedy-trial challenge, the judge distinguished procedural requirements that bind the prosecution from those that bind a defendant seeking a continuance, declining to read the statute as demanding the same rigid compliance in both directions.
“such literal compliance is primarily necessitated for continuances requested by the prosecution”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Partin, Varlan declined to consider objections to a magistrate judge’s report that raised arguments not presented before the magistrate judge.
“Parties may not 'raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented' before the magistrate judge's final R&R.”
In Vital Solutions, LLC v. Cymer, LLC, Varlan declined to reopen an expired dispositive-motion deadline after finding that counsel’s earlier inaction did not establish manifest injustice.
“clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their chosen counsel.”
Cautions
In Williams v. Loudon County Sheriff's Office, he denied reconsideration of a screening dismissal because the new filing did not cure the complaint's factually frivolous allegations.
“Plaintiff's allegations regarding 'in body cyberterrorism,' are the type of delusional and irrational allegations that fail to state a claim.”
In Vital Solutions, LLC v. Cymer, LLC, he rejected reconsideration of an expired dispositive-motion deadline and noted that the defendant's own briefing contradicted its claim that the deadline had been implicitly extended.
“defendant's argument of an 'implicit extension' is one that it contradicts itself.”
In a criminal case, the court rejected a vindictive prosecution theory because the superseding indictment added no charge or more severe charge and instead made changes favorable to the defendant.
“Since the superseding indictment clearly does not add additional charges or substitute more severe charges, and indeed, only includes modifications that benefit defendant, the requirements for vindictiveness are not met.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [Doc. 134] is DENIED”
“defendant's motion [Doc. 63] is DENIED.”
“Petitioner's motion for reconsideration [Doc. 6] is DENIED.”
“For the reasons that follow, the motion for voluntary dismissal [Doc. 127] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Ms. Robinette’s crossclaim is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The motion for judgment on the pleadings, motion to strike, and motion to dismiss [Docs. 111, 114, 123] are DENIED as moot.”
“plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment and preliminary injunction and/ or temporary restraining order [Doc. 7] is hereby DENIED.”
“plaintiff's motion [Doc. 19] is DENIED.”
“DENIES defendant's motions to dismiss [Docs. 135, 138, 164] as well as defendant's motion to reconsider [Doc. 139]. Because defendant's additional motions to dismiss raise the same issues as those addressed by the R&R, defendant's additional motions to dismiss [Docs. 125, 187, 189] are also DENIED.”
“DENIES defendant's motions to dismiss [Docs. 135, 138, 164] as well as defendant's motion to reconsider [Doc. 139].”
“The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 268] and DENIES defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 248] and Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 249].”
“The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 214] and DENIES defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Interstate Agreement on Detainers [Docs. 176, 199].”
“plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 12] will be denied”
“defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] will be granted.”
“defendant's Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees [Doc. 264] will be denied.”
“the Clerk is DIRECTED to TRANSFER defendant's § 2255 motion [Doc. 12] to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.”
“Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel [Doc. 13] is therefore DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled civil docket spans contract, insurance, employment, school-board civil-rights, prisoner civil-rights, and wage-and-hour matters. Most sampled cases ended through settlement, consent judgment, or stipulated dismissal, including one that settled after summary-judgment briefing; one prisoner case produced a summary-judgment ruling.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 10 |
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 Tennessee, not for Judge Varlan: 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 | 933 | 9.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 139 | 7.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 724 | 9.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 59 | 20.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 11 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 933 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 845 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 762 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 921 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 949 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 803 | 10 months |
| Sep 2019 | 859 | 12.1 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 Varlan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Varlan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Varlan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace