Robert M. Illman
How Judge Illman rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Illman
Robert M. Illman has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California since 2017 and was reappointed in 2025. Before joining the bench, he clerked for federal magistrate judges and served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Alabama. He earned degrees from Covenant College and the University of Alabama School of Law.
Judge Illman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Illman, 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
Do not submit chambers copies unless the court orders them; email proposed orders in Word format.
“Chambers copies should not be submitted unless otherwise ordered by the court. Proposed orders should be emailed in MS Word format to [email protected].”
Discovery
After meeting and conferring on a discovery dispute, file a detailed joint letter within five business days, limited to five pages without leave.
“Within five (5) business days of the meet and confer session, the parties shall file a detailed joint letter. It shall not exceed five (5) pages, excluding the cover page, without prior leave of court.”
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 Illman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Murman v. Murman, Illman read the financial elder-abuse provision to require a taking or retention by someone who knew or should have known it would harm the elder; he found no higher culpability requirement in the statute.
“There is no provision that requires a showing of more than mere negligence—all that is required for financial elder abuse is the taking or retention of an elder’s property by someone who knows or should know that such taking or retention will harm the elder.”
In Linda J R. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Illman reversed a benefits denial in a consent appeal and remanded for immediate calculation and payment of back benefits after finding the administrative decision lacked substantial evidence.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for the immediate calculation and award of back-pay benefits. A separate judgment shall issue.”
He entered a separate judgment on two dismissed claims where delaying appeal could affect the course of remaining tribal sovereignty and constitutional claims.
“As such, the equities weigh in favor of Plaintiffs.”
Procedural preferences
In Shirokov v. Develup, Illman criticized both parties' acrimonious discovery conduct as a waste of their resources and the court's while resolving their joint discovery letter.
“This joint letter brief represents the parties’ latest failure to act reasonably and responsibly and is a waste of both their and the court’s resources.”
In Piceno v. Donohue, Illman granted the plaintiff's motion to amend before any answer was served. He noted that Rule 15 allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint as a matter of course at that stage.
“Moreover, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint as a matter of course prior to the service of an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, the Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.”
Cautions
In Castillo v. Faraon, he found that legal ambiguity and insufficient evidence prevented calculation of overtime damages.
“The court cannot calculate the overtime damages because of the legal ambiguity and factual insufficiency of Plaintiffs’ filings, and thus Plaintiffs have not shouldered their burden of proving up damages.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8 ('Report')) recommending that the notice of removal (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed and the action be remanded to the Lake County Superior Court. No party filed an objection. The Court finds the Report correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and adopts it in every respect.”
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong deferred action on Illman’s recommendation to grant default judgment because the record raised a defect in service on a sole proprietorship. This order does not decide the default judgment motion and is retained only to document the treatment of the recommendation.
“Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge (dkts. 4, 9) and both parties have moved for summary judgment ... For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. ... This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for the immediate calculation and award of back-pay benefits. A separate judgment shall issue.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, and to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”
“Accordingly, Robinhood’s Letter Brief (dkt. 103) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Letter Brief (dkt. 104) is DENIED.”
“Defendants are ordered to carry out their offer to identify and map their production, without conditions, along with their offer related to the AutoBase production, but otherwise Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as overbroad.”
“Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ request for an order and ORDERS that Plaintiffs must cure the deficiencies as identified in the Letter Brief, with substantial completion to occur by June 30, 2026. ... the court DENIES Defendants’ request to otherwise order Plaintiffs to cure their production.”
“Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis is DENIED. However, some of the issues appealed are not frivolous, so the court does not certify that the appeal is made in bad faith, and Plaintiff may reapply to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for in forma pauperis status.”
“Accordingly, the Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
As the resident North Coast magistrate judge, Illman handles a broad directly assigned caseload dominated by Social Security disability appeals, alongside civil-rights, disability-employment, federal tort and personal-injury, labor and employee-benefit, False Claims Act, and copyright matters. The durations measure filing to termination, not motion-to-ruling time.
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 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Northern District of California, not for Judge Illman: 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 Illman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Illman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Illman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace