Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow

Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow, appointed to the San Francisco Superior Court by Governor Jerry Brown in 2012 and a Yale Law School graduate, has established himself as one of California's most intellectually rigorous complex civil litigation jurists. His docket reflects a consistent orientation toward high-stakes, technically demanding matters — antitrust, water rights, pharmaceutical liability, ADA litigation, and labor disputes — suggesting that he is comfortable, and perhaps most engaged, when cases require deep doctrinal analysis rather than routine adjudication. His 2015 ruling in the San Diego County Water Authority rate case, resulting in a $188.3 million judgment, and his oversight of the Sutter Health antitrust matter involving evidence destruction allegations, demonstrate a willingness to engage with both massive factual records and serious litigation misconduct issues. His election to the American Law Institute in 2019 signals peer recognition of his scholarly contributions to law, and his recognized expertise in anti-SLAPP jurisprudence and California procedural law suggests he holds attorneys to a high standard of procedural precision. Karnow's judicial philosophy appears grounded in careful evidentiary and jurisdictional gatekeeping — he does not appear to be a judge who will paper over weak foundations with equitable instincts. Attorneys should expect a bench officer who has likely read the briefs thoroughly, who will probe the record independently, and who will not be satisfied with conclusory legal arguments. His background strongly suggests preference for structured, citation-dense advocacy that engages honestly with adverse authority.

Attorneys appearing before Judge Karnow should prioritize intellectual rigor over rhetorical flourish. Given his ALI membership and scholarly reputation in procedural law, he will likely have formed independent views on legal questions before oral argument begins — counsel should treat argument as an opportunity to address the judge's specific concerns rather than to deliver a prepared speech. In complex civil matters, particularly antitrust, class actions, or public interest litigation, attorneys should anticipate probing questions on jurisdictional thresholds, evidentiary foundations, and the precise scope of relief requested. Vague or overbroad requests are likely to draw skepticism. On evidentiary and discovery matters, the Sutter Health antitrust case involving evidence destruction suggests Judge Karnow takes litigation misconduct seriously. Attorneys should ensure their clients' document preservation obligations are airtight before appearing, and should be prepared to address any discovery compliance issues head-on rather than minimizing them. In anti-SLAPP proceedings — an area of his recognized expertise — counsel must be especially precise about the two-step analytical framework and should not assume the court will overlook technical deficiencies in either the moving or opposing papers. Given the complexity of his typical docket, attorneys should submit well-organized briefs with clear roadmaps, precise citations to the record, and honest engagement with controlling adverse authority. Judges of this profile tend to penalize advocates who ignore inconvenient precedent, and reward those who distinguish it forthrightly.

• critical

  Audit All Procedural Compliance Before Filing

  Given Judge Karnow's expertise in California procedural law, conduct a thorough review of all deadlines, notice requirements, service rules, and local court rules before any filing or appearance. A procedural defect before this judge is unlikely to be overlooked.

• critical

  Prepare a Comprehensive Discovery Compliance Record

  In light of his scrutiny of litigation conduct in the Sutter Health matter, ensure your client's document preservation and discovery responses are fully defensible. Be ready to walk the court through your litigation hold and production process if challenged.

• critical

  Master the Anti-SLAPP Two-Step Framework If Relevant

  If anti-SLAPP issues are present, prepare a technically precise analysis of both prongs — protected activity and probability of prevailing — with citation to current controlling authority. Do not rely on general arguments; this judge will know the doctrine better than most.

• important

  Develop a Rigorous Evidentiary Foundation

  For any motion or trial preparation, ensure that every factual assertion is supported by admissible, specific evidence. Anticipate evidentiary objections and address foundation, authentication, and hearsay issues proactively in your papers.

• important

  Research Judge Karnow's Published Writings and Rulings

  As an ALI member with a scholarly reputation, Judge Karnow may have published articles, treatise contributions, or publicly available rulings that reveal his analytical framework on key issues. Researching these materials can provide significant strategic advantage.

• important

  Prepare Concise Oral Argument Roadmap Anticipating Bench Questions

  Given his engagement with complex legal issues, prepare oral argument as a dialogue rather than a monologue. Anticipate the hardest questions on your weakest points and have precise, record-based answers ready.

• ›Arrive fully prepared on the record — Judge Karnow's scholarly profile suggests he will have read the briefs carefully and may ask specific questions about the record or cited authorities from the outset of argument.
• ›Do not overstate your legal position or mischaracterize adverse authority; a judge with ALI membership and deep procedural expertise is likely to identify inaccuracies, and credibility loss before this bench is difficult to recover.
• ›Be concise and structured in oral argument — lead with your strongest legal argument, clearly state the relief you are seeking, and avoid discursive or repetitive advocacy.
• ›Treat opposing counsel professionally; judges presiding over complex, high-stakes litigation tend to value courtroom decorum and may view unprofessional conduct as a reflection of the merits of a party's position.
• ›If you do not know the answer to a judicial question, say so and offer to provide supplemental briefing — this judge is more likely to respect intellectual honesty than a speculative answer.