Russell G. Vineyard

Discovery Dispute with defense counsel in employment case. Judge was woefully unprepared. Clearly had not read brief beforehand and did not examine legal arguments during hearing. Rushed through. Couldn’t explain reasoning. Directly contradicted one of his own prior rulings. Made a special effort to tell me a failed challenge to his ruling could result in a monetary penalty. This judge is pathetic. With all the harm he’s caused, shame on 11th for keeping this loser on. Justice is a joke in the 11th. It has nothing on courts in Mexico.

Could anyone out there tell me what to do about a document entered on the case docket, scanned to appear on PACER and never filed with the Office of the Clerk

take a close look at 1:04-cr-183 and you will see that nothing essential here could possibly exist in the actual record

He was charged with perpetrating fraud upon the court, fabricating evidence, tampering with evidence and suborning perjury as AUSA after he was appointed magistrate judge, charges he never denied.

There is absolutely nothing honorable or decent about Russell G. Vineyard. Check out 1:07-mj-450-RGV. The ONLY plaintiff counsel is Zahra Karinshak of Krevolin & Horst. No, she was not appointed special or independent counsel, she did not appear in court one time and did not file anything in the case. For the record, the case does not exist.

A really decent judge.

EXCELLENT JUDGE. HE FOLLOWS THE LAW. COURTEOUS TO EVERYONE. WE NEED MORE LIKE HIM.

If there was a number lower than "1", Vineyard would get it for Title VII cases. Don't be fooled by his quiet demeanor. You might as well start preparing your appeal to the 11th Circuit when you find out he's on your case.

In employment cases . . . ZEEEE WORST!!! Applies the rules of evidence one way for employers, and the opposite way for plaintiffs--in the same opinion. Ignores evidence, as though it's not in the record, that could undermine the employer's defense. Then, just to raise the bar even higher, puts the burden on the plaintiff to DISPROVE that an employer's witnesses have an adequate evidentiary foundation. This guy was a federal prosecutor. You'd assume he knows the rules of evidence. But his rulings make you wonder if he's campaigning for the next open USDC seat in a Republican administration. Or he just thinks plaintiffs are leaches.

Impossible to prove illegal discrimination to this guy. If the plaintiff testifies to discriminatory comments, he'll call them hearsay and say the record supports the defendants. HORRENDOUS. Has no business being involved in civil litigation.

Vineyard is a former US Attorney/Criminal Division and knows nothing about labor and employment law. He makes rulings that are laughable like finding a defendant's training records are not relevant when there is a Faragher/Ellerth defense that has been pled. He never ever saw a defendant's summary judgement motion he didn't like and will rule for the defendant on issues the defendant never even moved upon for judgment. Awful.