Geoffrey William Crawford
How Judge Crawford rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Crawford
Geoffrey William Crawford is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Crawford received a commission on August 4, 2014. Judge Crawford assumed senior status on August 9, 2024.
Judge Crawford's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Crawford, 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.
- Jury Selection Procedure - Civil (Hon. Geoffrey W. Crawford) ↗
- Jury Selection Procedure - Criminal (Hon. Geoffrey W. Crawford) ↗
Key rules
Trial
For civil jury selection, submit potential witness lists at least three business days beforehand.
“the parties must submit lists of potential witnesses not less than 3 business days before jury selection.”
Trial
In civil jury selection, each party has three peremptory challenges.
“The parties will have three peremptory challenges each.”
Trial
In civil jury selection, a passed peremptory challenge is lost.
“If a challenge is passed, that challenge is lost and counts against the total allowed to that side.”
Trial
For criminal jury selection, submit proposed questions through CM/ECF at least two business days beforehand.
“Proposed questions from the parties must be submitted through CM/ECF not less than two business days before jury selection.”
Trial
For criminal jury selection, provide potential witness lists by the same two business day deadline if not already submitted.
“If not previously provided, the parties must submit lists of potential witnesses by the same deadline”
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 Crawford decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a face-to-face informant's account, corroboration of some details (how a burglary was carried out, items taken) can support crediting the informant's uncorroborated identification of an accomplice, without independent proof of the informant's past reliability.
“Partial corroboration of an informant is a circumstance that, on totality review, may allow a judicial officer to credit the informant's whole account.”
In a wrongful-death products case, once discovery non-compliance and an unresolved local-counsel requirement were fully documented across repeated hearings and explicit warnings, the court moved directly to a merits-ending default sanction rather than a lesser remedy.
“The court finds that the non-compliance with discovery is willful. Defendants have failed to comply with any discovery requirements or the court's deadlines despite repeated hearings and orders.”
Procedural preferences
In Terry v. Commissioner of Social Security, Crawford granted the claimant’s motion in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded for a new decision.
“the court concludes that Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, in part; the Commissioner's motion is DENIED; and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings and a new decision.”
In Gilbeau v. Deml, Crawford struck an unauthorized sur-reply but said he had reviewed it and that considering it would not change the dismissal result.
“concludes that the result is the same even if those documents are considered.”
In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, Crawford deferred a final ruling on the requested injunction while the parties addressed whether the school could participate in coeducational, nonathletic activities.
“The court will not issue its final ruling on the pending motion for injunctive relief until this issue is resolved.”
Cautions
A party opposing arbitration for years and then actively litigating the merits in court risks a finding of waiver, even without dispositive motion practice, once the totality of delay and litigation conduct is considered.
“A party need not have made dispositive motions on the merits in order to be deemed to have waived arbitration.”
In Smith v. Touchette, Crawford declined to adopt an exhaustion-based dismissal recommendation and denied that part of the defendants’ motion because they had not verified whether the prisoner completed the grievance process.
“Defendants should have verified whether Smith had followed the Offender Grievance System through to conclusion prior to filing their motion to dismiss.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 79) is GRANTED and Mr. Vergara's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 77) is DISMISSED as untimely.”
“NGM's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 30) is GRANTED, and all claims against NGM are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant's motion to suppress (Doc. 13) is DENIED.”
“Gomez-Lotero's motion to suppress evidence is DENIED.”
In a PCB medical-monitoring class action against a chemical manufacturer, the court certified two undecided questions about the scope of Vermont's newly enacted medical-monitoring statute to the Vermont Supreme Court, rather than resolving them itself on the pending motion to dismiss.
“The court DENIES the motion for preliminary injunction on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to make the required showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.”
“The court will enter a default judgment in the total amount of $12,082,743.”
“The Motion to Invoke Arbitration (Doc. 61) ... [is] DENIED.”
“the Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 60) ... [is] DENIED.”
“plaintiff's motion to compel production of former chair lift operator employees' contact information and for permission to contact former employees of Okemo ex parte is GRANTED, subject to compliance with the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict on Basis of Qualified Immunity (Doc. 123) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED for lack of specific personal jurisdiction.”
“The motion for clarification and reconsideration (Doc. 27) is GRANTED with respect to the issue of qualified immunity.”
“On reconsideration, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is GRANTED with respect to all counts of the Amended Complaint on grounds of qualified immunity.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 98 days (N = 4).
The sampled dockets spanned a diversity personal-injury/insurance suit removed and transferred out of the district on venue grounds, Social Security disability appeals, an unopposed prisoner habeas/default matter, an interstate trucking-accident suit still in discovery, and cases ending in voluntary dismissal or settlement before any contested ruling: consistent with a general civil docket where many cases resolve short of a dispositive motion.
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 | 5 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 10 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 28 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 12 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 13 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 16 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 7 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 5 |
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 District of Vermont, not for Judge Crawford: 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 | 1,324 | 2.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,000 | 2.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 315 | 4.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 6 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,324 | 2.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,321 | 2.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 297 | 3.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 261 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 275 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 214 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 210 | 10.8 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 Crawford with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Crawford, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Crawford's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace