Thomas W. Phillips
How Judge Phillips rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Phillips
Thomas W. Phillips is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Phillips received a commission on November 15, 2002. Judge Phillips assumed senior status on August 1, 2013.
Judge Phillips's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Phillips, 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
If correspondence is directed to the court either by mail or email, copies should be sent to counsel for all parties.
“If correspondence is directed to the court either by mail or email, copies should be sent to counsel for all parties.”
Discovery
Contact the assigned magistrate judge for a telephone conference if counsel cannot resolve a discovery dispute.
“If this cannot be accomplished, the parties should contact the magistrate judge assigned to the case for a telephone conference to discuss the dispute.”
Trial
Motions in limine shall be addressed, and in most instances resolved, at the final pretrial conference.
“Motions in limine shall be addressed, and in most instances resolved, 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 Phillips decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an ERISA remand-reconsideration dispute, the judge required an insurer's newly offered clarifying evidence to have existed at the time of the original decision to count as 'newly discovered': evidence assembled after the fact did not move him, even when offered to cure a procedural defect the court had already identified.
“The letter is not ‘newly discovered evidence’ for one obvious reason: Dr. Clemente wrote the letter after the case was remanded to United.”
On summary judgment, unrebutted expert medical evidence tying an occupational-disease claim to a cause unrelated to employment was dispositive once the plaintiff offered nothing to rebut it.
“Plaintiff has no evidence to rebut the autopsy findings, and conceded in the memorandum brief... that... nothing associated with his work for Norfolk Southern makes the railroad liable under the FELA.”
Procedural preferences
His court guidance states that parties should ordinarily follow Local Rule 7.1(b) page limits and that reasonable requests for more pages in complex cases are usually granted.
“The page limitations established by Local Rule 7.1(b) should ordinarily be followed. Reasonable requests to exceed the page limitations in complex cases, however, are usually granted.”
In Gabbard v. First Tennessee Bank, Phillips denied leave to amend because the proposed complaint still alleged no specific facts showing the private bank acted under color of state law.
“Plaintiff's proposed amendment fails to state specific facts alleging any further collusion, joint course of action, or other nexus with the police officers to demonstrate that the Bank's employees acted under color of law.”
Cautions
In Walker’s pro se habeas case, he dismissed the petition as time-barred after Walker failed to respond to a show-cause order; he also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
“Petitioner's habeas corpus petition was filed on May 26, 2009, and is barred by the one-year statute of limitation. Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus relief will be DENIED, and this action will be DISMISSED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 7] is DENIED”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 18] is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED.”
“the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED (Doc. 18), and this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution and failure to comply with the orders of the court.”
“the court will overrule plaintiff’s objections; deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; grant defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment; and dismiss this case.”
“grant defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment; and dismiss this case.”
“the court finds that there are multiple issues of material fact which remain to be determined at trial including: (1) whether age was a determining factor in plaintiff’s termination; and (2) whether plaintiff was replaced by a younger individual. Accordingly, Atmos Energy’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 25] is DENIED.”
“Ms. Every’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [doc. 30] is GRANTED.”
“The United States’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [doc. 19] is DENIED as moot.”
“The United States’ Motion for Permission to File a Surreply [doc. 34] is DENIED.”
“Petitioner's habeas corpus petition was filed on May 26, 2009, and is barred by the one-year statute of limitation. Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus relief will be DENIED, and this action will be DISMISSED.”
“Select Loan Servicing’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [doc. 32] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“NSRC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; NSRC’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 93] will be granted, and this action will be dismissed.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Judgment [Doc. 45] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, United’s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [Doc. 48] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [Doc. 50] is therefore DENIED.”
A pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint screened under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act; in forma pauperis status was granted but the complaint was sua sponte dismissed because the claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's underlying conviction. Quote: "Plaintiff's complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)."
“plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. 20] is without merit and is hereby DENIED.”
“Because the court concludes that the proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action against First Tennessee Bank, the court finds the proposed amendment would be futile. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint [Doc. 20] is DENIED.”
A pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint against Tennessee corrections officials and prison medical staff, sua sponte dismissed on statutory screening because the official-capacity defendants were immune and the complaint otherwise failed to state a claim. Quote: "this action is DISMISSED sua sponte, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983."
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 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 Eastern District of Tennessee, not for Judge Phillips: 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 Phillips with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Phillips, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Phillips's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace