🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Nancy Gertner

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts district Retired 2011 · served 1994–2011 Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 31 signed orders read

Judge Gertner no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Gertner decides

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

What persuades

She is a rigorous Daubert gatekeeper who tailors the permissible scope of expert testimony rather than admitting or excluding it wholesale. In a bank-robbery prosecution she allowed a handwriting examiner to describe similarities between samples but barred any opinion on ultimate authorship, while admitting defense expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification. A party offering expert proof should frame the opinion to the limits of the discipline's demonstrated reliability, not to an ultimate conclusion the method cannot support.

“I GRANTED the motion in part: I did not permit the handwriting expert to make any ultimate conclusions on the actual authorship of the questioned writing.”

She applies the reliability standard even-handedly to both sides, excluding a party's expert regardless of who offered the challenge. In a gender-discrimination case she granted motions to exclude both the plaintiff's and the defendants' proffered experts while allowing a third whose methodology was sound. Counsel should expect their own experts held to the same scrutiny they urge against the opponent's.

“I grant the motions to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs expert Dr. Huntoon and defendants' expert Dr. Britt.”

Signed rulings

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

Chao v. Ballista
· 2009-07-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (document # 42) is DENIED”

Charles v. City of Boston
· 2005-03-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant Bogdan's motion to dismiss [document # 13] as to Counts II and III of the Complaint — for failure to disclose evidence and conspiracy — is hereby DENIED. Counts IV and VI of the Complaint — for malicious prosecution under federal and state law — are hereby DISMISSED”

Herbert v. Dickhaut
· 2010-03-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The respondent's motion to dismiss with respect to the statute of limitations (document # 19) is DENIED.”

In re Biopure Corp. Derivative Litigation
· 2006-03-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“I hereby GRANT plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend and DENY defendants' Motions to Dismiss both the initial and Proposed Second Amended Complaint.”

Payne v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
· 2002-11-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The defendant's motion is therefore DENIED.”

United States v. Dynamics Research Corp.
· 2006-07-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANT the motions to dismiss filed by Azcuy and SEI, with the exception of the § 93A claims, which will be stayed pending the outcome of the government's FCA and AKA claims against DRC.”

Yong Tang v. Chertoff
· 2007-06-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“I DENY the government's motion to dismiss (document # 9), and GRANT the relief sought by plaintiffs.”

Norceide v. Cambridge Health Alliance
· 2011-08-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“CHA's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

United States ex rel. Deering v. Physiotherapy Associates, Inc.
· 2009-03-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Because I find that the remaining allegations are either time-barred or insufficient to state a claim, I GRANT the motion to dismiss (document #43) and DENY the motion to amend (document # 75).”

Sengkeo v. Horgan
· 2009-11-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (document #4) is DENIED.”

VIP Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of America
· 2011-02-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“I GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“I DENY Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment”

Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance
· 2009-03-31
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Accordingly, I GRANT partial summary judgment for the Museum on the suddenness issue, DENY summary judgment on all other aspects of the claims between U.S. Fire and the Museum, and GRANT summary judgment for ACE as against U.S. Fire.”

A historical record

Judge Gertner 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.