Brian J. White
How Judge White rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge White
Brian J. White serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California. The court announced a general order appointing him in September 2025.
Judge White's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge White, 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
Discovery
Request an informal discovery conference within 30 days after the event giving rise to a dispute if meeting and conferring fails.
“they must contact the Court to request an informal discovery conference within thirty (30) days of the event giving rise to the dispute.”
Conferences
File a request to excuse a required in-person attendee at least 14 days before the ENE or settlement conference.
“Any request to excuse a required party from personally appearing must be filed at least fourteen (14) days before the scheduled ENE or settlement conference.”
Conferences
Lodge a confidential ENE statement of five pages or less at least seven days before the ENE, unless ordered otherwise.
“Unless otherwise ordered, no later than seven (7) days before the ENE, the parties shall lodge confidential statements of five pages or less directly with the chambers of Magistrate Judge White at efile_White@casd.”
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 White decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed benefits decision, the court found reversible error because the administrative law judge neither incorporated a supported moderate limitation concerning attendance and safety rules nor gave legally sufficient reasons for rejecting it; the vocational evidence made the omission potentially outcome-determinative.
“therefore, finds the ALJ erred in not including Dr. Durr’s opinion”
Procedural preferences
The reviewed recommendation evaluated the net amount for each minor, compared similar recoveries, reviewed the fee percentage, and required federally insured blocked interest-bearing accounts before recommending approval.
“$10,000 for each minor with net recoveries of $7,500 for each is fair and reasonable.”
He enforced six narrowed document requests because they related to the underlying claims and the resisting nonparty did not show a sufficient reason to withhold them. He left any request to shift significant compliance costs for a supported motion after production.
“The Court finds that even if Tandem’s compliance requires a significant expense, Insulet has shown good cause to warrant enforcing Tandem’s compliance.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Count(s) TWO OF THE INFORMATION is Dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the United States.”
“Count(s) Two(2) of the Information (Felony) are dismissed on the motion of the United States.”
“Count(s) TWO OF THE INFORMATION is Dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the United States.”
“The Court RECOMMENDS that District Judge Simmons GRANT the Petition.”
“Count(s) AND ONE OF THE UNDERLYING INFORAMTION is Dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the United States.”
“Count(s) TWO OF THE INFORMATION is Dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the United States.”
“Count(s) TWO OF THE INFORMATION is Dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the United States.”
“Count(s) TWO OF THE INFORMATION is Dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the United States.”
“Count(s) TWO OF THE INFORMATION is Dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the United States.”
“REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Insulet’s motion with respect to the six requests that remain in dispute and ORDERS Tandem to produce documents responsive to Insulet’s Requests for Production 1–3, 9, 13, and 15 within 30 days of this Order. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Insulet’s motion as to Requests 6, 10–12, 14, and 16, because it no longer moves to compel responses to those requests.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion”
“RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Default Judgment be DENIED AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Twelve of the twenty-two unique matters carried termination dates. Their median duration was 13.5 days; five same-day warrant matters materially shape that figure.
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 |
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 White: 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 White with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge White, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge White's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace