Robert Lynn Echols

How Judge Echols rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Echols no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1992–2025
Appointed by
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
1992-03-18
Education
Southwestern at Memphis (now Rhodes College), B.A. (1962); University of Tennessee College of Law, J.D. (1964)
Signed orders read
9

How Judge Echols decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Echols enforced scheduling deadlines where a party tried to supplement expert proof only after discovery had closed.

“While a party has a duty to seasonably supplement expert reports, it must do so within the parameters of the scheduling order and not wait until the end of discovery and attempt to supplement an expert report in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.”

Procedural preferences

Echols required an amendment request to be presented by a separate motion rather than embedded in a legal memorandum.

“Because this request is contained in a legal memorandum and not in a separate motion, as required by Local Rule 7.01, the request is denied.”

Cautions

Echols allowed repleading on qualified immunity only so the plaintiff could identify specific facts supporting a clearly established constitutional claim.

“The Court will give Plaintiff Keely Jackson a period of twenty-one (21) days to amend her Amended Complaint to respond to the concerns raised in this opinion.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Nix
· 2007-01-23
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss The First Amended Complaint (Docket Entry No. 37) will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

PHG Technologies, LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc.
· 2006-11-07
Motions to dismiss (PHG Technologies, LLC) Granted

“Plaintiff PHG Technologies, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Alleging Unfair Competition, Violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and Unjust Enrichment (Docket Entry No. 110) will be GRANTED.”

Request for leave to amend (St. John Companies, Inc.) Denied

“Because this request is contained in a legal memorandum and not in a separate motion, as required by Local Rule 7.01, the request is denied.”

White v. United States
· 2003-01-10
Motions to dismiss (United States) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 3) is DEEMED WITHDRAWN.”

Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“Defendant’s latest Motion for Partial Dismissal (Docket Entry No. 11) is GRANTED.”

Aquatex Industries, Inc. v. Techniche Solutions
· 2004-09-27
Request for oral argument (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Request for Oral Argument (Docket Entry No. 40) is hereby DENIED;”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 43) is hereby GRANTED;”

Request for attorney fees (defendant) Denied

“its request for attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (see Answer; Docket Entry No. 17) is hereby DENIED;”

Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Cross-Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Re Patent Infringement Liability (Docket Entry No. 47) is hereby DENIED;”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions (Docket Entry No. 50) is hereby DENIED.”

DirecTV, Inc. v. McCool
· 2004-06-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 4) shall be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

Motion to strike expert report (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike Expert Report and Bar Expert Testimony (Docket Entry No. 35) shall be DENIED”

Motion for permission to file supplemental reply (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion for Permission to File a Supplemental Reply Brief (Docket Entry No. 39) shall be DENIED.”

Katt v. Titan Acquisitions, Inc.
· 2003-01-10
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 88) shall be GRANTED;”

Motion for additional discovery (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Additional Discovery in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 114) shall be DENIED;”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Docket Entry No. Ill) shall be DENIED as moot;”

Gentry v. Hershey Co.
· 2010-02-03
Summary judgment (Liberty Distribution, LLC) Granted

“Liberty Distribution’s and Hershey’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry Nos. 51 & 56) will be granted”

Motions to dismiss (Liberty Distribution, LLC) Moot / procedural

“thereby mooting Liberty Distribution’s request that Plaintiffs punitive damages claim against it be dismissed (Docket Entry No. 54)”

Summary judgment (Hershey Company) Granted
Request for entry of final judgment (Hershey Company) Denied

“Hershey’s request that the Court enter final judgment as to it will be denied.”

Summary judgment (Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.) Granted in part

“Petco’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 62) will be granted with respect to Plaintiffs strict liability, breach of express warranty and negligence per se claims, but denied with respect to Plaintiffs other claims for compensatory damages.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.) Granted

“Petco’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Punitive Damages (Docket Entry No. 57) will be granted”

Motion to bifurcate (Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.) Moot / procedural

“thereby mooting Petco’s ‘Motion to Bifurcate Damages Issues at Trial’ (Docket Entry No. 65).”

Motion to exclude expert (Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.) Granted

“Petco’s Motion to Exclude From Consideration the Untimely Affidavit Testimony of Plaintiffs Designated Expert (Docket Entry No. 89) will be granted.”

Ervin v. Nashville Peace and Justice Center
· 2009-11-18
Objection or motion for leave to file supplemental summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Objection To Report and Recommendation Or In The Alternative Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 135) is hereby OVERRULED and DENIED.”

Motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings Or For A Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 128) is hereby DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 114) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

People First v. Clover Bottom Developmental Center
· 2010-05-28
Emergency motion to compel or for declaratory relief (State defendants) Granted in part

“the State’s Emergency Motion To Compel Quality Review Panel To Comply With Settlement Agreement Or, In The Alternative, For Declaratory Relief (Docket Entry No. 965) will be granted in part and denied in part.”

Cross motion to enforce settlement (United States) Granted in part

“The Court will grant in part and deny in part the United States’ cross motion.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The five sampled closed matters include securities, patent, employment, Medicare reimbursement, and products-liability litigation. This purposeful sample does not describe the full caseload.

A historical record

Judge Echols 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.