Walker David Miller
Judge Miller no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Miller decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He treated indirect economic effects in Colorado as insufficient when the alleged injury and conduct centered abroad.
“Plaintiffs allege no injury beyond mere incidental economic injury from the loss of their rights in another country, an injury that is insufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts prong.”
He allowed a punitive-damages theory to proceed where the magnitude of possible harm and missing exposure data could support recklessness.
“A reasonable jury could find that given the magnitude of the harm and the lack of information about the minimum exposure level capable of causing harm, the manufacturer acted recklessly in failing to investigate or warn consumers of the potential for harm.”
Procedural preferences
He limited jurisdictional discovery when proposed requests were not tailored to facts likely to affect jurisdiction.
“the proposed discovery covers issues that are largely irrelevant to the jurisdictional issues now before the court. Therefore, the discovery is unlikely to have a real impact on the resolution of these issues.”
He declined issue preclusion at summary judgment when the prior verdict did not establish that the same issue had actually been decided.
“Because I cannot determine from this record as a matter of law that the issues presented in the previous case were identical to those here, I will not grant summary judgment in Plaintiffs favor on this claim.”
He deferred ongoing permit review to Colorado's comprehensive administrative and judicial process to avoid disrupting state policy.
“Colorado has a comprehensive review process that allows all issues to be properly addressed and reviewed.”
Cautions
On post-trial weight-of-the-evidence review, he applied the rule that evidence remains viewed in the prevailing party's favor.
“the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed May 12, 2006 (Docket No. 51), is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, filed May 12, 2006 (Docket No. 53), is denied without prejudice as moot.”
“Defendant’s motion to bifurcate, filed May 12, 2006 (Docket No. 52), is denied without prejudice as moot.”
“Defendant’s motion to strike, filed June 1, 2006 (Docket No. 62), is denied without prejudice as moot.”
“Accordingly, it is ordered that Defendant’s motion to amend, filed March 27, 2007 (Docket No. 108), is denied.”
“Plaintiffs’ Appeal of Magistrate Judge Ruling (Docket No. 87) is denied.”
“The parties’ Joint Motion to Clarify Applicability of Motion to Dismiss Operative Complaint (Docket No. 52) is granted.”
“Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Docket No. 18) is granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the General Personal Jurisdiction of Defendant Friedland (Docket No. 83) is denied.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary-Judgment (Docket No. 88) is denied as moot.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer (Docket No. 96) is denied.”
“The Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 572) is denied.”
“The Joint Motion to Exclude General Causation Testimony (ECF No. 567) and the Joint Motion to Exclude Specific Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Allen Parmet (ECF No. 569) are denied.”
“The Joint Motion to Exclude Specific Causation of Plaintiffs’ Expert Cecile Rose (ECF No. 570) is denied without prejudice.”
“The Joint Motion to Exclude Specific Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert David Egilman (ECF No. 568) is granted with respect to Dr. Egilman’s opinions regarding a minimal threshold exposure level sufficient to cause injury. The motion is otherwise denied.”
“Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial Based on the Excessive Size of the Verdict or-In the Alternative-Motion for Remittitur (Docket No. 138) is granted as to remittitur and is otherwise denied.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Based on Plaintiffs Spoliation of Relevant Evidence (Docket No. 141) is denied.”
“Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial Because the Verdict was Against the Weight of the Evidence (Docket No. 154) is denied.”
“Defendant Robert M. Friedland’s Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 39) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’• Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 162) is denied.”
“IBM’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Wage Claim Act and Contract Claims Based on Commission and Separation Pay Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 8) is granted.”
“IBM is awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs associated with that part of the partial motion to dismiss addressing the separation pay issue.”
“The Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on ADEA Claim (Docket No. 362) is granted.”
“The Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Third Through Sixth ' Claims for Relief (ECF No. 208) is denied.”
“The Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) filed by Defendants Stacey Moore, Caleb Moore, and Jeremy Vialpando is denied.”
“The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) filed by Plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company is granted.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant LaCabe (ECF No. 17) is denied.”
“Intervenor Attorney General’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is granted. The claims against all parties are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendant City of Cortez’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 79) and Defendant Nickerson’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based Upon Qualified Immunity (ECF No. 72) are granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The eight reviewed archival dockets included four diversity matters, three employment civil-rights matters, and one Railway Labor Act matter. All were terminated; this purposive historical slice is not a career-wide caseload profile.
A historical record
Judge Miller no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.