We Read 600 Standing Orders So You Don't Have To

Every federal judge in the country can publish their own set of courtroom procedures. Some judges write two pages. Some write forty. Some haven't updated theirs since 2018. A few update multiple times per year. There is no central repository, no standard format, and no notification system when something changes.

We set out to fix that. Over the past several months, we crawled court websites across 20 federal districts, downloaded every standing order and individual practice document we could find, and fed them through an extraction pipeline that turns unstructured PDFs into structured rule data. Here's what the numbers look like.

The Raw Numbers

Finding #1: The Length Gap Is Wild

The shortest standing order we found was 186 words. It basically said: "Follow the local rules. Call my clerk if you have questions." The longest was over 11,000 words, covering everything from font requirements to how to label exhibit tabs to which days the judge's clerk accepts phone calls.

The median length was about 2,400 words. But length doesn't correlate with specificity in the way you'd expect. Some of the shortest documents contained the strictest rules, and some of the longest were mostly restatements of the local rules already in effect.

Finding #2: Page Limits Vary More Than You Think

The local rules for most districts set a default page limit for motions (usually 25 pages). But individual judges override this constantly. We found page limits ranging from 10 to 35 for the same motion type, depending on the judge. A few judges use word counts instead, and the word-count equivalents don't match the page limits they replace.

One judge in the Central District of California sets different limits for different motion categories: 15 pages for discovery disputes, 20 for summary judgment, 30 for claim construction. Miss the category and you use the wrong limit. The standing order doesn't have a "default" for uncategorized motions. You just have to call chambers and ask.

Finding #3: Pre-Motion Conference Requirements Are a Minefield

About 40% of the judges in our dataset require a pre-motion conference letter before you can file certain motions. The letter requirements vary enormously. Some judges want a one-page summary. Others want a three-page letter that includes "the specific legal basis for the motion, the anticipated arguments, and an estimate of briefing pages needed."

The tricky part: which motions require the letter? Summary judgment almost always does. Discovery motions sometimes do. Motions in limine? Depends on the judge. Some standing orders list every covered motion type. Others say "all dispositive and non-dispositive motions," which technically means everything, but in practice means you should call the clerk and ask whether your specific motion needs the letter. A pre-motion conference letter about a pre-motion conference letter requirement. It's turtles all the way down.

Finding #4: Courtesy Copy Rules Are Chaos

Some judges require physical courtesy copies of everything you file electronically. Some require them only for motions over a certain page count. Some require them only for sealed filings. Some say "chambers copies should not be submitted unless specifically requested." One judge's standing order says both "courtesy copies are required" and "do not send unsolicited copies to chambers" in different sections of the same document.

The delivery requirements are just as varied. Some want them mailed. Some want them hand-delivered. A few specify that courtesy copies must arrive within 24 hours of the electronic filing. One judge in EDNY wants courtesy copies tabbed and bound (spiral-bound, not three-ring, obviously).

Finding #5: Senior Judges Are Not Lighter on Rules

We assumed senior judges (those who have taken senior status and carry a reduced caseload) would have simpler standing orders. Wrong. On average, senior judges' standing orders are about the same length as active judges' orders. Some of the most detailed documents in our dataset come from judges who have been on the bench for 30+ years and have had decades to refine their preferences.

The content is different, though. Senior judges are more likely to include specific instructions about how they handle specific motion types, drawing on years of experience with recurring issues. Their rules feel less like "requirements" and more like "things I've learned the hard way that you should know."

Finding #6: Update Frequency Is All Over the Map

We track when standing orders change. Some judges update annually. Some haven't touched theirs in five years. A few update multiple times per year, sometimes with significant changes buried in what looks like a routine revision.

The most active updater in our dataset issued four revisions in 2025 alone. Two of those changes affected page limits for motions. If you prepared a filing based on the version from March and filed in November, you were working from an outdated document. There's no email list, no RSS feed, and no docket entry announcing the change. The new PDF just appears on the court website, replacing the old one.

What We're Doing About It

All of this data feeds into CourtRules.app, where it's structured, searchable, and monitored for changes. When a judge updates their standing order, we detect it, re-extract the rules, and surface the diff. No more downloading PDFs, no more guessing whether your version is current.

We're expanding coverage to more districts, and we're building an API so docketing and compliance tools can pull structured rule data directly. If your software touches federal court filings, we'd like to talk.