Thomas S. Zilly

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 19 signed orders read

How Judge Zilly decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On FOIA Exemption 5 reads the deliberative-process privilege narrowly: a 'Final' biological evaluation adopted as the agency's position is neither agency-authored (if a private consultant prepared it for the applicant) nor pre-decisional, and sharing it with the permit applicant WAIVES the privilege ('selective disclosure ... is offensive to the purposes underlying the FOIA').

“the March 2017 BE is therefore not an agency document for purposes of the FOIA.”

Procedural preferences

Standard Zilly order opener: rules on the papers; opinions are captioned generically ('ORDER' / 'THIS MATTER comes before the Court'), with the disposition stated only in the Conclusion.

“THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment ... Having considered the motion, all materials filed in support of and opposition thereto, and the arguments of counsel, the Court enters the following Order.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Heide v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
· 2017-05-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“State Farm's motion for summary judgment, docket no. 15, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs CPA claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
· 2019-01-20
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 18, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant is ORDERED to provide the March 2017 BE to Plaintiff within twenty (20) days”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 13, is GRANTED in part. Claim 4 of the Complaint, docket no. 1, is DISMISSED. Defendant's motion is otherwise DENIED.”

Global Enterprises, LLC v. Montgomery Purdue Blankenship & Austin PLLC
· 2014-09-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment.”

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
· 2013-01-28
Motion to limit review to administrative record (defendant) Denied

“The Federal Defendant's Motion to Limit the Record, docket no. 101, is DENIED. The parties may supplement the administrative record with relevant material.”

A.Z. ex rel. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Blueshield
· 2018-08-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' motion to dismiss A.Z.'s first claim is DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion to dismiss A.Z.'s second claim is GRANTED. A.Z.'s second claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' motion to dismiss A.Z.'s third and fourth claims is DENIED.”

Kirchoff v. Wipro, Inc.
· 2012-10-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, docket no. 42, is GRANTED.”

Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
· 2012-09-26
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion, docket no. 25, for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. Under the Towage Agreement and insurance policies, Defendant was obligated under the MGL policy to defend and pay the portion of Mr. Kellogg's claims attributable to Dutra's negligence.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motion, docket no. 30, for summary judgment of dismissal is DENIED.”

Graham-Bingham Irrevocable Trust v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co. USA
· 2011-10-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denied in part and granted in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, docket no. 37, and denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, docket no. 43. Plaintiffs' CPA and bad faith claims shall remain in the case for trial, consistent with this Order.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denied in part and granted in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, docket no. 37, and denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, docket no. 43.”

Bryant v. Wyeth
· 2012-07-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“The Court concludes that Pennsylvania law applies to any claim for punitive damages based on fraud against Wyeth and DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“The Court concludes that Mrs. Bryant has produced sufficient evidence of product identification with respect to Defendant Upjohn to create an issue of material fact for trial and DENIES Defendants' motion as to that issue.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the product label or other affirmative action of Defendants constitutes an express warranty and the Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty under the WPLA as to all defendants.”

Baxter v. MBA Group Insurance Trust Health & Welfare Plan
· 2013-07-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Plaintiff has not met his burden to prove that proton therapy was covered under the relevant policy language. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice and with costs.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to raise a material issue of fact on whether proton therapy is more costly than IMRT.”

J.E.F.M. v. Holder
· 2015-04-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Whether plaintiffs' constitutional due process right-to-counsel claim has merit cannot yet be determined, but plaintiffs deserve, and the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction (at least with respect to juveniles currently in removal proceedings) to eventually provide an answer.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Thus, as to these two juveniles, the Court currently lacks jurisdiction, and defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part. The claims of G.D.S. and A.E.G.E. are DISMISSED without prejudice.”

F.L.B. v. Lynch
· 2016-04-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' motion is therefore GRANTED in part, with regard to Director Rodriguez and J.E.V.G., and DEFERRED in part as to M.A.M., but it is DENIED in all other respects for the reasons stated in this order.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The Court is satisfied that venue is proper because at least one plaintiff resides in Washington ... Defendants' Rule 12(b)(3) motion is DENIED.”

Put Judge Zilly's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Zilly actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Zilly's own signed orders and cites them.