James Robertson
Judge Robertson no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Robertson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He accepted an agency records search when detailed declarations showed that the search reasonably tracked the request as written.
“The two Nelson declarations demonstrate that the search — for what JMP asked for — was reasonable.”
He used an injunction to set enforceable compliance goals while leaving technical implementation choices to the agency.
“But this Court does have the expertise and the authority to create goals and to hold the government to those goals.”
He found a strong likelihood of success sufficient to support preliminary relief despite a comparatively weak showing of irreparable injury.
“If an agency could avoid notice and comment merely by deleting one definitive interpretation before adopting a second, inconsistent one, the requirement would be meaningless.”
Cautions
He distinguished among categories of affected third parties when balancing privacy against the public interest in disclosure.
“the public interest in ‘what the government is up to’ outweighs the privacy interests of persons who have been convicted of crimes or have entered public guilty pleas”
He declined additional discovery where the missing proof concerned causation and damages already within the plaintiffs' own knowledge.
“No further discovery has been sought on causation and damages, which are of course for plaintiffs to prove with facts within their own provenance.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
On initial screening, he wrote: “The Court will dismiss this civil action without prejudice.”
“plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be granted.”
“The motion for preliminary injunction, [Dkt. # 92], is denied.”
“PWU’s motion for summary judgment [# 24] is granted by the order that accompanies this memorandum.”
“There are no grounds on which to vacate the arbitrator’s award.”
“The injunction is granted by the order that accompanies this memorandum.”
“The CIA’s motion to dismiss JMP’s amended complaint will be granted.”
“Dkt. # 47, will be granted in an order that accompanies this memorandum.”
“the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. # 5, will be granted, and the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, Dkt. # 7, will be denied”
“the government’s motion to dismiss will be granted.”
“The District’s motion will therefore be granted as to the First Amended claim”
“Because the information requested falls under the exceptions to FOIA found in 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(4) and (b)(6), defendant’s motion will be granted.”
“Because plaintiffs lack Article III standing, however, their complaint must be dismissed.”
A historical record
Judge Robertson 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.