Marsha J. Pechman
How Judge Pechman rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pechman
Marsha J. Pechman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Pechman received a commission on September 9, 1999. Judge Pechman assumed senior status on February 6, 2016.
Judge Pechman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pechman, 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
Use 12 point Times New Roman in pleadings.
“all pleadings must be in 12-point Times New Roman font.”
Filing
Email a Word version of a proposed order to chambers when filing the motion.
“the moving party must email a Microsoft Word version of a proposed order to [email protected] at the time of filing.”
Motions
Meet and confer in good faith before filing a motion to compel.
“Before filing a motion to compel, a party must make a good faith effort to meet and confer with the opposing party.”
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 Pechman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gallupe v. Sedgwick, Pechman granted the claimant summary judgment on short-term disability benefits after finding that the administrator failed to credit reliable medical evidence and meaningfully consider her job duties.
“Sedgwick's failure to credit reliable evidence concerning Ms. Gallupe's disability indicates an abuse of discretion.”
In Karnoski v. Trump, she compelled production of deliberative-process material, finding that the government could not seek deference for a policy as the product of considered deliberation while withholding information about those deliberations.
“Defendants may not simultaneously claim that deference is owed to the Ban because it is the product of ‘considered reason [and] deliberation,’ ‘exhaustive study,’ and ‘comprehensive review’ by the military (Dkt. No. 194 at 17; Dkt. No. 226 at 9) while also withholding access to information concerning these deliberations, including whether the military was even involved.”
At the pleading stage in an insurance coverage action, she refused to decide the policy merits through a dismissal motion when the insurer had pleaded a plausible claim.
“All of these arguments require the Court to reach the merits of the case rather than test”
In one trademark preliminary-injunction dispute, Pechman denied relief after concluding that the asserted common-law mark was not protectable, defeating likely success.
“Because ‘Layout’ is not protectable as a common law trademark, Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on his claim.”
Procedural preferences
In Commerce W. Ins. Co. v. Lucke, she struck legal conclusions in an attorney's declaration and rejected a sanctions request made there, explaining that Rule 11(c)(2) requires a separate motion.
“A request for sanctions may not be made in an attorney’s declaration, but must be made by separate motion.”
In a discovery dispute, she enforced the requirement to confer by phone or face to face before moving to compel; emails alone did not satisfy the local rule. The denial did not reach the discovery merits.
“the Motion is improper because it does not include a Rule 37(a)(1)”
Cautions
In Karnoski v. Trump, Pechman required the government to support its deliberative-process privilege claims with sufficiently specific descriptions and rejected blanket assertions.
“Privilege logs must provide sufficient information to assess the”
In one Washington consumer protection case, allowing amendment cured the plaintiffs’ initial failure to plead a specific purchase injury and causation, but the court later dismissed with prejudice after finding the challenged featured-offer design was not deceptive or unfair. This reflects the two rulings in that case.
“Regardless of further amendment, the underlying conduct is not deceptive or unfair.”
In a money-judgment appeal, Pechman denied a request for an unsecured stay because the movants had not explained why they could not obtain a bond or provide other security, while allowing a renewed motion.
“They provide no explanation as to why they cannot obtain a 19 bond or post some other security consistent with Rule 62(b).”
She granted reconsideration after finding that her own summary-judgment order had treated hybrid work as proof of full-time remote accommodation; the accommodation claim was reinstated.
“The Court committed manifest error by conflating Plaintiff’s admission that she was a”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.”
“DENIES Defendants’ Motion for a Protective”
“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary”
“GRANTS the Motion to Strike and does not rely upon the stricken”
“DENIES the Luckes’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion; and DENIES Defendant’s Motion.”
“DENIES Defendant’s Motion.”
“Therefore the Court GRANTS Amazon’s Motion without prejudice. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint within 30 days of this Order.”
“Therefore, the Court GRANTS Amazon’s Motion. The FAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Finding that Plaintiffs have failed to show manifest error in the prior ruling, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 53).”
“The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and GRANTS the Motion to Remand. The Court REMANDS this matter to the King County Superior Court.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant Seattle Public Schools’ Motion and 20 counterclaim and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion and claim for attorneys’ fees.”
“the Court GRANTS the District’s Motion and AMENDS its 21 Order to specify that the Parents must repay the reimbursement award.”
“For these three reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Amend.”
“On this record, the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay. The Court’s ruling is without 5 prejudice to a renewed Motion to Stay that fully briefs the issue under Rule 62.”
“The Court GRANTS the Motion and PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS”
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 (Seattle), not for Judge Pechman: 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 Pechman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pechman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pechman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace