Allison H. Goddard
How Judge Goddard rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Goddard
Allison H. Goddard has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California since 2019. She earned a bachelor’s degree from Boston College and a law degree from the University of San Diego School of Law.
Judge Goddard's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Goddard, 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.
- Goddard Civil Pretrial Procedures ↗
- Goddard Criminal Pretrial Procedures ↗
- Goddard Form to Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge ↗
- Goddard Joint Case Management Statement Rules ↗
- Goddard Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules ↗
- Goddard Rule 26(f) Conference Checklist ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Obtain a pre-motion conference or leave of court before filing a discovery motion.
“No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court.”
Discovery
Raise a discovery dispute with the court within 45 days after the disputed written response or relevant deposition transcript becomes available.
“The parties must bring any discovery dispute to the Court’s attention (either by email or filing a motion as outlined above) no later than 45 days after either (1) the date of service of the written discovery response that is in dispute; or (2) the date that the portion of the deposition transcript”
Conferences
Request a continuance by joint motion at least seven calendar days before the affected date.
“All requests for continuances must be made by a joint motion no less than seven calendar days before the affected date.”
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 514-E: Policy on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files ↗
- General Order 596: Pro Bono Plan ↗
- Chief Judge Order 144: Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions ↗
- Chief Judge Order 134-A: Appointment of Counsel for Certain Immigration Detainees Seeking Habeas Relief ↗
How Judge Goddard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ryan C., she found errors in how the administrative judge evaluated medical evidence and testimony before ordering a benefits remand.
“the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Dr. Nicholson’s medical opinion and failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony.”
Procedural preferences
On a referred request for terminating sanctions, she issued a recommendation for the district judge to decide.
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Judge GRANT IN PART the motion”
Cautions
In James J., she recommended denying sanctions because the claimant had not shown evidence loss or a basis for Rule 37 relief.
“DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions”
In Goodson, planned mediation did not justify stopping discovery, although she allowed an extension of deadlines.
“motion for a stay, but GRANTS the parties’ request for an extension of deadlines.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Motion to Stay be DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED IN PART and”
“GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Plaintiffs’ Petition”
“GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to Remand”
“DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate”
“DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions”
“After reviewing the Motion to Dismiss and all supporting documents ... the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Motion, and DISMISS this action with prejudice. ... the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) in its entirety, and DISMISS this action with prejudice.”
“GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment”
“DENYING Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment”
“ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part 7 Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference.”
“the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the joint motion as follows:”
“The Court therefore REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN”
“For the reasons set forth above, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to serve a subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. ECF No. 4.”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Southern District of California, not for Judge Goddard: 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 | 2,204 | 5.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 642 | 3.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,066 | 5.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 484 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 38.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,204 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,146 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,133 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,974 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,381 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,885 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,265 | 6.2 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 Goddard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Goddard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Goddard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace