Robert E. Payne
How Judge Payne rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Payne
Robert E. Payne is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Payne received a commission on May 13, 1992. Judge Payne assumed senior status on May 7, 2007.
Judge Payne's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Payne's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Payne decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a state consumer protection enforcement case, he rejected defendants’ request to compel the Commonwealth to arbitrate under consumers’ contracts because the Commonwealth was not party to those agreements.
“there is no contract between Waller and Klink and the Commonwealth. Therefore, there is no arbitration agreement and no agreement for the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.”
In an insurance coverage case, he realigned insured defendants with the claimants based on their shared interest in coverage and denied remand after the realignment preserved diversity jurisdiction.
“Because the Insured Defendants' interests are most properly aligned with the Plaintiffs in this case, the MOTION TO REALIGN (ECF No. 6) will be GRANTED. As a result, the MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 12) will be DENIED.”
In the federal challenge to Virginia’s in-state tuition rules, he granted the Commonwealth summary judgment after concluding that the Tuition Equity Pathway was not based on residence and did not conflict with the federal restriction.
“Because the Tuition Equity Pathway is not based on residence, it is not preempted.”
Procedural preferences
In Soutter v. Equifax Information Services LLC, he granted in part the plaintiff's motion to strike a defense declaration offered in a class-certification dispute. The declarant had admitted that he lacked personal knowledge and had signed a lawyer-prepared document without knowing 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.”
In Benedict v. Hankook Tire Co., he denied the manufacturers' post-trial motion to seal exhibits, transcripts, and part of a jury instruction. He applied the presumption of public access to trial materials and found the earlier protective order insufficient to justify sealing them.
“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.”
In Soutter v. Equifax Information Services LLC, he explained that renewed class certification required a rigorous review of the Rule 23(a) and 23(b) evidence. The same opinion partly struck a defense declaration whose signer lacked personal knowledge.
“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.”
In Dolan v. Ford Motor Company, he partly denied Ford’s request to preserve confidentiality labels after finding its broad designations lacked specific evidence of competitive harm, and he ordered a fresh review of the labels.
“Ford has overused the privilege of confidential designation permitted by the Protective Order.”
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.”
“For the foregoing reasons, DEFENDANT TODD BEVINGTON’S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 180) 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.”
“Because the Insured Defendants' interests are most properly aligned with the Plaintiffs in this case, the MOTION TO REALIGN (ECF No. 6) will be GRANTED. As a result, the MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 12) will be DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) was granted by ORDER (ECF No. 61). In turn, the Court dismissed COUNTS I through IV (the federal claims) with prejudice. and COUNT V (the state law gross negligence claim) without prejudice.”
“In sum. there is no contract between Waller and Klink and the Commonwealth. Therefore, there is no arbitration agreement and no agreement for the arbitrator to decide arbitrability. Therefore, the MOTION will be DENIED. It is so ORDERED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled Richmond docket includes consumer-protection and credit-reporting suits, Social Security appeals, prisoner civil-rights and habeas petitions, insurance and commercial disputes, and larger antitrust or products cases. This is a qualitative description of the reviewed cases, not a counted population distribution.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 10 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 7 | 2 |
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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Payne: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Payne with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Payne, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Payne's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace