Ajay S. Krishnan
How Judge Krishnan rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Krishnan
Ajay S. Krishnan began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California in January 2026. He previously practiced at Keker, Van Nest & Peters and worked for the ACLU of Northern California. He earned degrees from Rice University and Harvard Law School.
Judge Krishnan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Krishnan, 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
Motions
Each party is limited to one summary judgment motion absent leave and good cause.
“Each party is limited to filing one summary judgment motion. Any party wishing to exceed this limit must request leave of the Court and must show good cause.”
Discovery
After an unresolved discovery meet and confer, file a joint statement of at most five single-spaced pages with 2.5 pages per side.
“If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, they must file a joint statement of at most 5 single-spaced pages (12-point font or greater) with 2.5 pages allotted per side”
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).
How Judge Krishnan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In WPEngine v. Automattic, Krishnan granted some requests for financial documents and denied others based largely on whether they fell within the parties' March 2026 production agreement.
“Accordingly, the Court intends to hold both parties to that agreement, to the extent appropriate, given its context.”
In a tax-lien discovery dispute, Krishnan found both express and implied waiver where a party disclosed counsel's advice and then relied on that advice to justify the challenged conduct.
“This and other carefully crafted non-responses demonstrate Ms. Romanowski’s improper invocation of the privilege ‘as both a shield and a sword, that is, to reveal a limited aspect of privileged communications in order to gain a tactical advantage in litigation.’”
Procedural preferences
Krishnan requires discovery motions to comply with his standing order and expects specific meet-and-confer facts; noncompliant motions may be denied without prejudice.
“Because these discovery motions were not filed in accordance with the undersigned's Civil Standing Order, both motions are DENIED without prejudice.”
In a later discovery dispute, Krishnan denied a unilateral request without prejudice where counsel did not jointly present the dispute or adequately confer before seeking court intervention.
“There was no effort to submit a joint letter, as the Court’s Standing Order required.”
Cautions
A prior state ruling does not support issue preclusion when it addressed a materially different incident from the federal claim.
“The issues are distinct because they involve two different incidents.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Mr. Stebbins's motion for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Mr. Stebbins's renewed request for appointment of a deposition officer is DENIED.”
“Because these discovery motions were not filed in accordance with the undersigned's Civil Standing Order, both motions are DENIED without prejudice.”
“Defendants' motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings on Mr. Young's Monell claim”
“Accordingly, Defendants' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED because Defendants have failed to demonstrate any ‘manifest failure’ on behalf of the Court.”
“As to Dkt. 289, Defendants' motion to compel production of documents from Asana, Jiro, Figma, and Miro, the motion is granted.”
“Defendants need only answer to the extent that the information they would disclose has not already been disclosed in response to an equivalent interrogatory posed to another Defendant.”
“Dkt. 293 is WPE's motion to compel production of ‘long-withheld documents central to WPE's claims.’ The Court denies this motion in its entirety.”
“As to Dkt. 294, in which WPE seeks additional deposition time with Mr. Mullenweg given his lack of knowledge or other behavior at his multi-day deposition, the Court grants the motion in part.”
“Interrogatory 10 to Automattic, Interrogatory 4 to WooCommerce, and Interrogatory 4 to WordPress Foundation: GRANTED IN PART.”
“Dkt. 311 is Defendants' motion to compel production of certain financial documents. The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Brand Studies Measuring Reputational Harm: GRANTED IN PART.”
“The Court finds that these conditions are satisfied here and GRANTS Defendant Mistry's motion as to S.A.'s claims.”
Krishnan entered partial final judgment implementing a previously approved class settlement. The document states that the earlier approval order granted the settlement motion, so this judgment is retained as context and not counted as a separate outcome.
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the United States’s motion to compel testimony related to Ms. Romanowski’s conversations with Mr. Isaacson regarding ‘(1) opening the N53 accounts at issue; (2) depositing personal checks into business accounts; (3) not opening personal accounts; (4) paying personal expenses from business accounts; and (5) delaying filing tax returns.’”
“Defendants are permitted to depose Mr. Young for three more hours.”
“Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court DENIES the request and ORDERS that Mr. McDowell’s deposition shall proceed in person.”
Krishnan dismissed the consent case with prejudice after the docket reported a settlement. The order is retained as context but excluded from motion statistics because it did not adjudicate a motion.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The twenty-case sample spans civil-rights, immigration, copyright, trademark, consumer-credit, freedom-of-information, and miscellaneous subpoena matters. Thirteen were still pending. Seven terminated matters ended by voluntary dismissal, settlement, transfer, or closure of a miscellaneous subpoena proceeding, so their durations do not measure adjudication speed.
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 | 6 |
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 Northern District of California, not for Judge Krishnan: 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 | 6,017 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,955 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,978 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,052 | 15 months |
| Closed during trial | 32 | 36.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,017 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,248 | 20.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 5,452 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 9,464 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,437 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,881 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,640 | 8.7 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 Krishnan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Krishnan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Krishnan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace