Thomas S. Zilly

How Judge Zilly rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
Position
District judge
Status
Senior status
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
April 20, 1988
Education
University of Michigan (B.A., 1956); Cornell Law School (J.D., 1962)
Signed orders read
23

About Judge Zilly

Thomas Samuel Zilly is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Zilly received a commission on April 20, 1988. Judge Zilly assumed senior status on January 1, 2004.

Judge Zilly's practices and standing orders

The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Zilly's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Zilly decides

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

What persuades

In Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, he ordered disclosure of a biological evaluation after finding it was prepared by the permit applicant's private consultant, adopted as the agency's final position, and shared with the applicant.

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

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.”

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years2
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202602
Sep 202502
Mar 202523
Sep 202404
Mar 202405
Sep 202301
Mar 202301
Sep 202213
Mar 202213
Sep 202103
Mar 202105
Sep 202003

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 Zilly: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed2,8776 months
Closed with no court action6843.4 months
Closed before pretrial2,1596.7 months
Closed during or after pretrial1027.7 months
Closed during trial2425.2 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20252,8776 months
Sep 20242,6396.5 months
Sep 20232,5946.4 months
Sep 20222,3037.3 months
Sep 20212,7038.7 months
Sep 20202,3407.2 months
Sep 20192,5367.6 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 Zilly with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Zilly, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Zilly's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace