KYJKnow Your Judge v0.6.2by SwansLake
Judge directoryYvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Active District judge

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

California

Identity verifiedOfficial profile locatedOfficial sources collectedPresentation intelligence
01

Overview

Identity and service

Official judge-specific and circuitwide procedural guidance has been located for this profile.

Judicial role
Judge
Service status
Active
Court level
District
Jurisdiction
Federal
02

Background

Biography and career

Born
1965 in Houston, TX
Gender
Female
Race
Hispanic/Latino
Political affiliation
Democratic (via appointer)

Education

  • Princeton UniversityA.B., 1987

Professional career

  • Private practice, San Francisco, CA, 1991-2003
  • Judge pro tem, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, 2007-2008
  • Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, 2008-2011

Judicial service

  • Judge, District Court, N.D. California, 2011-present

Source: CourtListener / Free Law Project public biographical data. Demographic and political labels are incomplete, source-attributed, and are not used to infer judicial behavior. “Via appointer” describes CourtListener’s attribution method, not verified personal party membership.

03

Before you appear

Preparation checklist

  1. 01

    Read the judge-specific standing order first when one is listed.

  2. 02

    Check the docket and case orders for requirements that supersede broader guidance.

  3. 03

    Confirm current remote-access and courtroom technology arrangements before the proceeding.

Scope note

Judge-specific guidance is shown first. Broader applicable courtroom, courtwide, districtwide, and statewide guidance remains separately labeled below it.

04

Presentation rules

What the public sources say

Judge-specificExplicit
Pretrial

Allowed with notice

Judge Gonzalez Rogers holds case management conferences by Zoom by default and presumes other proceedings are in person; a videoconference request requires a compelling showing of good cause.

Page
1
Section
Paragraph 2(d), Scheduling days
Effective
June 22, 2026
Last checked
July 26, 2026
Verification
Automated checks passed
Read supporting source excerpt
The default rule is that all Case Management Conferences are held via Zoom videoconference and all other proceedings are presumed to be in-person. ... Requests to appear by videoconference may be entertained upon a compelling showing of good cause.

The requirement is stated in an official standing order naming this judge.

CourtwideExplicit
Pretrial

Technology guidance published

The Northern District of California publishes guidance advising counsel to fully test their equipment and schedule a courtroom visit to test it before the proceeding.

Page
Official page
Section
Connecting a computer, laptop or iPad/iPhone to the evidence presentation system
Last checked
July 26, 2026
Verification
Automated checks passed
Read supporting source excerpt
The court highly recommends that counsel be familiar their equipment and fully test prior to using anything in the courtroom. ... schedule a visit in the courtroom to test everything before the proceeding.

The requirement is stated in current official court rules and is attached at court scope, not as a personal preference.

CourtwideExplicit
Pretrial

Allowed with notice

For e-evidence requiring specialized software, the Northern District of California publishes a process for at least two business days' advance notice through the Courtroom Deputy and approval by the judge and Court IT.

Page
Official page
Section
Instructions for Counsel
Last checked
July 26, 2026
Verification
Automated checks passed
Read supporting source excerpt
at least two (2) business days advance notice, counsel may request via the Courtroom Deputy that the specialized software be loaded by counsel prior to use of the system. If the judge and the court’s IT Department approve...

The requirement is stated in current official court rules and is attached at court scope, not as a personal preference.

CourtwideExplicit
Civil Trial Or Hearing

Leave required

In federal district-court civil proceedings, testimony is ordinarily taken in open court; remote contemporaneous testimony requires good cause in compelling circumstances and appropriate safeguards.

Page
Current official rules page and linked rules compilation
Section
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a); district civil proceedings only
Last checked
July 26, 2026
Verification
Automated checks passed
Read supporting source excerpt
For good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.

The requirement is stated in current official court rules and is attached at court scope, not as a personal preference.

CourtwideExplicit
Criminal Proceeding

Restricted

Federal district courts may not permit courtroom photography or broadcasting during criminal judicial proceedings unless a statute or another federal rule provides an exception.

Page
Official U.S. Courts history and current rule text
Section
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53; criminal proceedings
Last checked
July 26, 2026
Verification
Automated checks passed
Read supporting source excerpt
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.

The requirement is stated in current official court rules and is attached at court scope, not as a personal preference.

05

Courtroom technology

Published equipment guidance

Judge-specific

Allowed with notice

If a party intends to use audio-visual demonstratives during a hearing (e.g., PowerPoint presentation), it shall provide a copy to opposing parties and the Court no fewer than 24 hours in advance ... bring printed copies ... contact the Courtroom Deputy ... to test that equipment on a date at least one day in advance of the hearing.

Open official source ↗
06

Published opinion footprint

Decisions and citations

Opinion data is not yet indexed for this profile

This does not mean the judge has no published opinions or no caseload. KYJ will only show opinion counts after transparent, source-linked CourtListener matching is available.

07

Sources

Public documents behind this profile

08

Change history

How this profile entered KYJ

Current profile indexed

Identity imported from Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory. 6 presentation-related claims migrated with source provenance.