David D. Leshner
How Judge Leshner rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Leshner
David D. Leshner has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California since 2022. He earned a law degree from Washington and Lee University School of Law and previously served as an assistant United States attorney in the district.
Judge Leshner's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Leshner, 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.
- Leshner Chambers Rules ↗
- Mandatory Settlement Conference Procedures ↗
- 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
Start the discovery dispute procedure within 30 days after the event giving rise to the dispute.
“The parties must initiate the procedure described in section C above within 30 days of the event giving rise to the dispute.”
Sealing
File a public version of any document that a party moves to seal.
“The party moving to seal must also file a ‘public’ version of the document(s) it seeks to file under seal.”
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 Leshner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a reviewed Social Security appeal, Leshner recommended further proceedings after finding harmful legal error and insufficient support for the agency decision.
“the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision was not free of harmful legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence.”
Procedural preferences
In a multi-motion discovery sealing dispute, Leshner required specific evidence of harm and allowed only targeted redactions for three of four requests.
“‘particularized showing that specific prejudice or harm will result’ if the information is disclosed.”
In another sealing dispute, he allowed redaction of material revealing the plaintiff’s location while directing the parties to file more precise public and sealed versions.
“the joint motion to seal [Dkt. No. 324] is GRANTED IN PART”
Cautions
In another reviewed appeal, he recommended affirmance when he found the agency decision free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence.
“the Court concludes the ALJ’s decision is free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“granting Plaintiff’s request for remand for further administrative proceedings”
“affirming the decision of the Commissioner”
“Conditionally GRANTING the Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Petition and this action without prejudice”
“granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s due process claim without leave to amend.”
“Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to the Title 15 regulations”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Ex Parte Motion to Approve Minor’s Compromise”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Judge (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation in its entirety; (2) denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and (3) directing Defendant to answer Plaintiff's Complaint.”
“For the reasons below, the motion is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion [to] Accept Concede by Defendants of Plaintiff Claim Access to the Court and Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer are DENIED.”
“granting Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions”
“granting in part Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions”
“RECOMMENDS the District Court DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for contempt.”
“RECOMMENDS the District Court DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defense counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.”
“Granting the issuance of the subpoena for documents to Qualcomm”
“Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED”
“the Writ of Mandamus is DENIED AS MOOT”
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 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 Leshner: 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 Leshner with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Leshner, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Leshner's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace