Ajay S. Krishnan
How Judge Krishnan rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
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 complex discovery, he narrows relief to information that is relevant and proportional, while enforcing specific agreements counsel reached about production scope.
“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.”
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.
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