Marilyn Bernie "Tena" Gresky Campbell

How Judge Campbell rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Position
District judge
Status
Senior status
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
June 30, 1995
Education
University of Idaho, B.A. (1967); Arizona State University, M.A. (1970); Arizona State University College of Law, J.D. (1977)
Signed orders read
33

About Judge Campbell

Tena Campbell is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Campbell received a commission on June 30, 1995. Judge Campbell assumed senior status on January 1, 2011.

Judge Campbell's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Campbell, 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

Filing

Email editable Word proposed orders directly to Judge Campbell’s chambers.

“Proposed orders e-mailed to chambers must be editable and in Microsoft Word format.”

Filing

Provide a paper courtesy copy of dispositive motions and related materials when filing.

“At the time of filing, parties are required to provide one courtesy hard copy of dispositive motions and related exhibits and memoranda.”

Discovery

In Judge Campbell’s patent cases, confidentiality alone does not justify withholding discovery without a court order.

“Discovery cannot be withheld on the basis of confidentiality absent Court order.”

Trial

Under Judge Campbell’s trial order, serve proposed jury instructions 10 business days before trial.

“The parties must serve their proposed jury instructions on each other at least ten business days before trial.”

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Campbell decides

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

What persuades

When the parties jointly sought sentencing relief under Section 2255 after concerns arose about evidence handling, Campbell granted the stipulated motion.

“The court GRANTS the Stipulated Motion to Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1.)”

At the pleading stage of a mental-health parity claim, Campbell found a plausibly alleged disparity where the complaint identified a treatment limitation, medical or surgical analog, and differing application of the limitation.

“the court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled the elements of a Parity Act claim.”

Procedural preferences

In Residential Warranty Services, Inc. v. Goyo Media, LLC, she granted the post-trial fee and expense motion in part, reducing the requested attorney fees to reflect the plaintiff’s partial success while awarding its expert expenses.

“The Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and other expenses (ECF No. 102) is GRANTED IN PART.”

In one expert-testimony dispute, Campbell treated objections to differences among illustrative truck videos as matters for cross examination.

“The Defendants’ concerns that the trucks were different makes and models and had different loads could be addressed during cross examination.”

Cautions

In Powertech’s discovery dispute, she denied the requested default sanction after finding lesser remedies effective, then awarded reasonable fees and extended discovery.

“Moreover, the court finds that lesser sanctions would be effective in these circumstances.”

Signed rulings

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

Thomas v. Weber State University
1:20-cv-00054-TC-DAO
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“WSU's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 114) is GRANTED; ... Because no reasonable jury could find that Ms. Knapp and Dr. Abel were appropriate persons under Title IX, Ms. Thomas is unable to prove an essential element of her claim.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Ms. Thomas's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 145) is DENIED;”

Pomeroy v. Utah State Bar
2:21-cv-00219-TC-JCB
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Ms. Pomeroy's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 127) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Utah Bar's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 128) is GRANTED. ... The Utah Bar has not violated Ms. Pomeroy's free speech and association rights by engaging in activities with which she disagrees, and its refund procedures do not violate its members' free speech rights.”

Johnson v. Uintah School District
2:24-cv-00238-TC
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS ... The Plaintiffs' second claim for vicarious liability is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ... fourth claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ... The court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' ninth claim ... [and] the eleventh claim for municipal liability.”

CleanCut, LLC v. Rug Doctor, Inc.
2:08-cv-00836
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“As a result, Rug Doctor's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The court also DENIES CleanCut's motion for summary judgment, as the motion relies entirely on the declaration of Curt Waisath, the inventor of CleanCut's patent.”

Finlinson v. Millard County
2:16-cv-01009
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Utah County's Amended Second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 190) is accordingly DENIED. Utah County's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 184) is additionally DENIED as moot.”

DiTucci v. Ashby
2:19-cv-00277
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 322) is DENIED.”

Motion to lift stay (plaintiff) Granted

“The Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay (ECF No. 317) is GRANTED.”

Brewer v. Davis County
1:15-cv-00040
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 217.) Claim nine based on RLUIPA is DISMISSED with prejudice, under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”

Orton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
2:22-cv-00414
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that State Farm's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. Ms. Orton's complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend.”

Milestone Electric, Inc. v. inContact, Inc.
2:20-cv-00630
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Milestone has not plausibly alleged a breach of contract or a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that inContact's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”

Plumb v. University of Utah
2:20-cv-00574
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“It is ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Mr. Plumb's 14th Amendment due process claim against Defendants Ross Whitaker in his personal capacity and John Does 1-10 survives dismissal ... Defendant University of Utah is dismissed entirely from this case.”

Nightingale College v. Bailey
2:21-cv-00099
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to Utah State District Court (ECF No. 7).”

Clayton v. Ford Motor Co.
2:01-cv-00595
Judgment on pleadings (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 303 days (N = 9).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 173 days (N = 3).

  • Judge Campbell took senior status in 2011 and continues to carry a merits docket.
  • The sampled 2019-2022 matters include trademark, copyright, anti-spam, civil-rights, False Claims Act, Social Security, commercial, contract, and criminal cases.
  • The signed orders also address Title IX, compulsory bar dues under the First Amendment, and school-district liability.
  • This describes case mix rather than the frequency of any outcome.

How long civil cases take in this court

For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Utah, not for Judge Campbell: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed1,1208.5 months
Closed with no court action3437 months
Closed before pretrial7649 months
Closed during or after pretrial3not reported
Closed during trial1059 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20251,1208.5 months
Sep 20241,1419.3 months
Sep 20231,03510.6 months
Sep 20221,09212.3 months
Sep 20211,12812.7 months
Sep 202095110.4 months
Sep 20191,0859.7 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 Campbell with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Campbell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Campbell's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace