Robert E. Payne
How Judge Payne decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
He insists that affidavits/declarations offered on a motion rest on actual personal knowledge, and will strike one when the declarant admits he merely signed a document a lawyer prepared and did not know its contents.
“in his deposition Johnson admitted that he did not have personal knowledge of the matters recited in the affidavit. In fact, he merely signed a document that an unknown lawyer for LexisNexis prepared and delivered to him for signature.”
He applies a strong presumption of public access to trial materials and will deny even a post-trial sealing motion absent a fresh, narrowly tailored justification -- a pre-trial protective order is self-limiting and does not control once material is used at trial.
“HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED'S AND HANKOOK TIRE AMERICA COMPANY'S MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS, TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, AND JURY INSTRUCTION (ECF No. 433). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.”
On a motion that turns on outside facts (e.g. class certification), he conducts a rigorous, evidence-based analysis and is exacting about the reliability of the evidentiary record on which the motion rests.
“whether to permit certification requires a rigorous analysis of the evidence to determine whether all four class requirements set by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequate representation) are satisfied, and whether the requirements of Rule 23(b) are satisfied.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 5 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 3 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion in limine N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to seal N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“part of the motion in limine, here at issue seeks to exclude evidence of "other corporate campaigns" conducted by the Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.”
“PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE MARK JOHNSON DECLARATIONS (Docket No. 156) will be granted in part and, in part, denied as moot.”
“This matter is before the Court on the DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 47), the Plaintiffs response (Docket No. 53) and the reply (Docket No. 57). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.”
“This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANT TODD BEVINGTON'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Docket No. 180). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.”
“This case is before the Court on the Defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 23). For the reasons set forth below, this motion will be denied.”
“This matter is before' the Court on DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 156). For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be denied.”
“the motion was denied, except on the issue of future lost profits damages under Count One, as to which the Court ordered further briefing.”
“HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED'S AND HANKOOK TIRE AMERICA COMPANY'S MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS, TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, AND JURY INSTRUCTION (ECF No. 433). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.”
“By the ORDER of May 11, 2017 (ECF No. 149), the Defendant's Motion was granted in part and denied in part. The reasons for that Order are set forth below.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
From the enumerated dockets (illustrative, not a counted population): Payne's Richmond-division docket runs to consumer-protection/FCRA and consumer-credit suits, Social Security appeals, prisoner civil-rights and habeas petitions, insurance and commercial/franchise disputes, and the occasional large antitrust/products case. His best-known matters (Steves & Sons v. Jeld-Wen antitrust; Smithfield Foods RICO) are NOT in the 2019 duration cohort below.