Karen E. Scott
How Judge Scott rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Scott
Karen E. Scott has served as a United States magistrate judge for the Central District of California since July 2015. She earned a bachelor’s degree from Stanford University and a law degree from Stanford Law School in 1996.
Judge Scott's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Scott, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Parties need not deliver chambers copies of electronically filed documents until further order of the court.
“**ALL PARTIES ARE EXCUSED FROM DELIVERING CHAMBERS COPIES OF E-FILED DOCUMENTS TO THE COURTHOUSE AS DIRECTED BY PARAGRAPHS 11 AND 24 BELOW UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.***”
Discovery
If the parties agree, the court may hold an informal telephone conference to resolve a discovery dispute without formal motion practice.
“TELEPHONIC INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC) Procedures: With the agreement of the parties, the Court will conduct informal telephonic conferences to resolve discovery disputes outside the formal Local Rule 37 procedures.”
Conferences
File a request for a telephonic appearance at least two business days before the hearing.
“TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES: Any party who wishes to appear at a hearing by telephone must file such a request at least two business days before the hearing.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
- General Order 11-10: Alternative Dispute Resolution Program ↗
- General Order 19-01: Criminal Duty Matters Electronic Filing Pilot Project ↗
- General Order 20-13: Criminal Duty Matters Electronic Filing Pilot Project ↗
- General Order 18-02: Submission of Certain Prisoner Filings Through Electronic Mail ↗
- General Order 24-07: Criminal Justice Act Plan ↗
How Judge Scott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On an insured's motion for summary adjudication of an insurer's duty to defend, she applies California's potentiality rule with explicit burden-shifting: the insured need only show the underlying claim MAY fall within coverage, after which the insurer must prove no possibility of coverage exists. A plausible causal theory linking the additional insured's conduct to the injury is enough to trigger the duty.
“In other words, the insured need only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage; the insurer must prove it cannot.”
In Safaryan’s detention case, she found that the government’s lack of opposition and the cited district-court reasoning left the current detention unauthorized under Section 1231(a)(6).
“Based on this lack of opposition, and the logic of the district court cases cited above, including Diallo, the Court finds that Petitioner's current detention is not authorized under § 1231(a)(6).”
Procedural preferences
In Mt. Hawley’s insurance dispute, she declined summary adjudication on a coverage theory that depended on the disputed fact of late delivery.
“Mt. Hawley, as the moving party, had the initial burden of establishing a potential for coverage based on undisputed material facts. Here, the material fact of whether there was, in fact, a late delivery is disputed. Thus, the Court cannot grant Mt. Hawley summary adjudication as to this theory.”
She distinguishes between expedited final adjudication and separate emergency relief. In Pineda Sevilla, she denied a temporary-restraint request because the existing expedited habeas schedule could address the alleged harm, then granted the petition and ordered release after full briefing.
“Applications for temporary restraining orders should be reserved for cases where the petitioner alleges imminent, irreparable harm that cannot be addressed by the standard scheduling order or by expediting the briefing schedule.”
In Flores Arroyo’s habeas case, Scott dismissed the petition as moot after a change in removal status shifted detention to a different statutory provision, leaving the original challenge to a bond hearing no longer live.
“This change moots the claims raised in the initial Petition, which challenged the IJ’s findings under § 1226(a).”
Cautions
In Pineda Sevilla’s habeas case, she ordered release to restore the status quo that preceded the due process violation.
“Releasing Petitioner is narrowly tailored to the specific wrong, because it restores the status quo that was in effect before Respondents violated Petitioner's due process rights.”
In Ankit’s detention case, Scott denied the petition for another bond hearing. She found that roughly four months since the prior hearing alone did not establish a due process violation, and that he could seek a new hearing upon changed circumstances.
“the mere passage of time alone does not demonstrate a due process violation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed below, Mt. Hawley's motion is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dt. 42) is GRANTED. The Court shall separately enter judgment against Plaintiff and for Defendants on all claims.”
“IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Motion for Remand (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered REVERSING the portion of the Commissioner's decision denying benefits and REMANDING the case for further proceedings consistent with this decision, including development of the record.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the First Amended Petition.”
“For these reasons, the Court summarily dismisses the Petition with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. The TRO Application (Dkt. 3 ) is granted. 2. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Judgment shall be entered granting the Petition. 2. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody.”
“As discussed further below, the Petition is denied because Petitioner has not demonstrated that his arrest was illegal or that the immigration court's denial of bond was an abuse of discretion.”
“Based on the facts and law stated in the Petition, and in light of Respondents' lack of opposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered, as follows: 1. Granting the Petition; 2. Ordering Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody and to return to her all documents, identification cards, and other items confiscated by Respondents upon Petitioner's arrest”
“Based on the facts and law stated in the Petition, and in light of Respondents' lack of opposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment will be entered granting the relief requested in the Petition, as follows: 1. Respondents shall immediately release Francisco Javier Obregon Cajina (A# 246421735) from custody.”
“The Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed as Moot. (Dkt. 15.) Petitioner did not respond. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Petition as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is GRANTED IN PART, as follows: 1. Claim Two is granted. 2. Claim One is denied. 3. Claim Three is denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 13.0 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 13.5 days (N = 24).
The reviewed 2026 consent cases include recently decided immigration-detention habeas petitions alongside pending petitions. The broader sampled docket also includes Social Security appeals, insurance and contract disputes, consumer suits, and civil-rights cases.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Central District of California, not for Judge Scott: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 15,190 | 3.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,414 | 3.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 10,538 | 4.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 103 | 17.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 135 | 25.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 15,190 | 3.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 15,348 | 3.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 13,583 | 4.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 12,887 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 14,213 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 14,205 | 5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 13,478 | 4.9 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Scott with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Scott, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Scott's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace