David G. Estudillo
How Judge Estudillo rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Estudillo
David Estudillo is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Estudillo received a commission on October 7, 2021.
Judge Estudillo's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Estudillo, 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
Contacting chambers
Share video conference login details only with the client and staff assisting with the matter.
“Attorneys shall only share the video conference login details with their client and staff who are assisting with the matter.”
Discovery
Before filing a discovery motion, parties must have a status conference with the court to discuss the dispute.
“the parties are prohibited from filing a discovery related motion until after the court has conducted a status conference to discuss the discovery dispute.”
Discovery
File a joint discovery dispute statement of no more than three pages to schedule the status conference.
“To schedule the discovery dispute status conference, the parties must first file a joint discovery dispute statement outlining the dispute. The joint discovery dispute statement shall be no more than three (3) pages.”
Discovery
After filing the joint discovery dispute statement, contact the courtroom deputy to schedule the status hearing.
“Once the joint discovery dispute statement is prepared and filed, contact the courtroom deputy to schedule the status hearing.”
Conferences
Attorneys appearing by video must have a working camera and appear on camera.
“Attorneys shall appear on camera.”
Conferences
Attorneys may not appear by video from a vehicle.
“Attorneys are prohibited from appearing from vehicles.”
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).
- Amended Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Materials Related to Cooperation ↗
- Exhibit Retention Procedures ↗
- Availability and Redaction Policies for Electronically Filed Transcripts ↗
- Social Security Cases ↗
- Immigration Habeas Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ↗
- Amended Provisions for Electronic Case Filing ↗
How Judge Estudillo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Koonwaiyou v. Blinken, Estudillo read the phrase 'shall not be considered to be' in an immigration statute according to its ordinary meaning and compared its use elsewhere in the Act. He dismissed the nationality claim on that reading; the Ninth Circuit later reversed the dismissal.
“The language 'shall not be considered to be' as used in Section 15(b)(1) ordinarily means that whatever is identified preceding such language is not that which is identified after such language. This conclusion is supported by other sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act that use the exact same language.”
Procedural preferences
In Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States, he dismissed a challenge to tribal gaming compacts after finding that the Shoalwater Bay Tribe was a required party that could not be joined.
“Having reviewed the briefing of the parties, the Court finds that Shoalwater is a required party that cannot be joined and therefore GRANTS Shoalwater’s motion.”
In Peña v. Clark County, he denied the county’s motion to exclude a psychologist after finding her opinions met the admissibility threshold and that challenges to their factual basis belonged in cross examination.
“Defendant may properly cross-examine Dr. Brown about weaknesses in her method and opinions.”
Cautions
In Jones v. Ford Motor Company, Estudillo dismissed a Washington Privacy Act claim because an installed infotainment system was not among the persons covered by the statute and the plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient injury. He initially allowed the plaintiffs to amend.
“Because an infotainment system installed in a vehicle sold by Ford is not an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the State of Washington ... and because Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient injury, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In a Clean Water Act citizen suit, notice that reached a related contractor satisfied the notice requirement, but the complaint still had to plead what that contractor allegedly did. The court dismissed the claims against that contractor with leave to amend.
“The complaint does not otherwise discuss Strata.”
In a dispute over a patent-license termination clause, the court denied both sides’ partial summary-judgment motions because the agreement’s use of “dissolved” required factual context about the parties’ intent.
“There is a question of fact as to whether the parties agreed that the word ‘dissolved’”
In Logg v. TIG Insurance Co., he declined a recommendation to deny CBIC’s dismissal motion because a prior state court decision foreclosed relitigation of the contract issue.
“Relitigating the existence of a contract in this Court conflicts with the policy of ending disputes.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding the 1986 amendment's proviso language limits Plaintiff's mother's U.S. national status to the date it was conferred and that such status is not retroactive to Plaintiff's mother's date of birth.”
“the Court finds that Shoalwater is a required party that cannot be joined and therefore GRANTS Shoalwater's motion.”
“because Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient injury, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ... Accordingly, Ford's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Defendant-Intervenor's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 52) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 54) is DENIED. ... This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and shall proceed under the jurisdiction of the Suquamish Tribal Court.”
“Defendant-Intervenor's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 52) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 54) is DENIED.”
“the Court finds and ORDERS that Strata’s motion is GRANTED in part.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s 19 First Amendment Retaliation claim and GRANTED as to her Local Government Whistleblower 20 Protection Act claim.”
After supplemental briefing on the same summary judgment motion, the court dismissed the constructive discharge claim; the First Amendment retaliation claim remained for trial.
“Plaintiff’s pending motion for interim and final relief (Dkt. No. 13) is DISMISSED as 4 MOOT;”
“Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Dkt. No. 59) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendants’ request for certification (Dkt. No. 67) and motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 70) are DENIED.”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
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 Western District of Washington (Tacoma), not for Judge Estudillo: 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 | 2,877 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 684 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,159 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 27.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 25.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,877 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,639 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,594 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,303 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,703 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,340 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,536 | 7.6 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 Estudillo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Estudillo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Estudillo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace