Marsha J. Pechman
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 ERISA abuse-of-discretion review she scrutinizes the administrator hard: arbitrarily refusing to credit treating physicians, relying on a non-examining file reviewer for a subjective psychiatric disability, and failing to assess the claimant's actual job duties each independently show abuse of discretion.
“neither Sedgwick nor Dr. Tellioglu explains how in-person observations by Ms. Gallupe's treating physicians ... and PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores indicating 'severe' depression are not 'objective' evidence, particularly in the context of a disorder that is inherently subjective and self-reported.”
Will not let the government claim deference to a policy as the product of 'considered reason and deliberation' while withholding the very deliberations under the deliberative-process privilege; the privilege is narrowly construed and the government bears the burden.
“Defendants may not simultaneously claim that deference is owed to the Ban because it is the product of 'considered reason [and] deliberation' ... while also withholding access to information concerning these deliberations, including whether the military was even involved.”
Procedural preferences
Enforces evidentiary formalities: a request for sanctions cannot ride in an attorney's declaration but must be a separate motion under Rule 11(c)(2); improper legal conclusions in a declaration will be stricken.
“A request for sanctions may not be made in an attorney's declaration, but must be made by separate motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).”
Cautions
Demands specific, non-boilerplate privilege logs (author/recipient identified, document-by-document descriptions); blanket assertions of privilege are rejected.
“Privilege logs must provide sufficient information to assess the claimed privilege and to this end must (a) identify individual author(s) and recipient(s); and (b) include specific, non-boilerplate privilege descriptions on a document-by-document basis.”
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 = 4 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to compel N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for protective order N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“Having found that the deliberative process privilege does not apply in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.”
“Having found that President Trump has failed to demonstrate that he need not invoke the presidential communications privilege, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Strike; and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to Strike and does not rely upon the stricken statements in its consideration of the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.”
“the Court GRANTS Commerce West's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to this claim and DENIES the Luckes' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“the Court hereby construes Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 as a Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion; and DENIES Defendant's Motion.”
“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, which it construes as a Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment”