Michelle M. Pettit
How Judge Pettit rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pettit
Michelle M. Pettit has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California since 2023. She graduated from the United States Naval Academy and Vanderbilt University Law School and previously served as an assistant United States attorney in the district.
Judge Pettit's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pettit, 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.
- Pettit Civil Chambers Rules ↗
- Pettit Model Protective Order ↗
- Pettit Rule 26(f) Conference Checklist ↗
Key rules
Filing
Consult and comply with the court’s Rule 26(f) conference checklist.
“The parties must also consult and comply with the Rule 26(f) Conference Checklist for the Southern District of California on the Court website.”
Conferences
Serve a written settlement proposal with a specific demand at least 28 calendar days before an MSC.
“No later than twenty-eight calendar days before the MSC, 3 the plaintiff must serve on the defendant(s) a written settlement proposal, which must include a specific demand amount.”
Conferences
Meet and confer by videoconference about the settlement demand at least 14 calendar days before an MSC.
“No later than fourteen calendar days before the MSC, counsel for the parties must meet and confer via videoconference to discuss the settlement demand”
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 Pettit decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a trade secret case, Pettit found a limited request to identify former customers relevant to testing alternative causes of the plaintiff’s claimed lost business.
“the Court finds OEM has satisfied its burden of establishing relevance.”
Procedural preferences
In Kachele, she treated discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference as premature and emphasized that early discovery requires leave of court.
“The Court reminds the parties that discovery is generally not available until after the Rule 26(f) conference and any early discovery requires leave of court.”
Cautions
For requests to seal entire merits-related filings, Pettit expects the movant to explain why targeted redaction cannot protect the asserted interest.
“And if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, they must show that their compelling interest cannot be protected by redacting only the sensitive portions of said document.”
Pettit denied a broad request for nine additional custodians when their former employment alone did not establish relevance to the alleged deleted emails.
“request is not focused but expansive.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“On October 21, 2025, the Court adopted United States Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit's Report and Recommendation to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 103.)”
“the Court DENIES the Joint Motion, ECF No. 19, and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to extend the expert designation deadline, ECF No. 22. ... Plaintiff has failed to show reasonable diligence in complying with the July 12, 2024 expert designation deadline ... is dispositive of the Rule 16(b) good cause analysis.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS the Motion be DENIED without prejudice.”
“The Court RESOLVES the Joint Motion for Determination of 4WEB's Discovery Dispute ECF Nos. 132, 133 as follows: 1. The Court GRANTS 4WEB's motion to compel as to RFPs 2 and 40 ... 4. The Court DENIES 4WEB's motion to compel as to RFPs 55, 33, 50, and 56. 5. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 4WEB's motion to compel as to RFPs 26, 27, 28, 31, and 45.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 4WEB's motion, ECF No. 158, and DIRECTS the Clerk to file under seal the proposed sealed documents lodged as ECF No. 159.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing exceptional circumstances to justify the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. ECF Nos. 8, 11.”
“For the above reasons, the Court DENIES IN SUBSTANTIAL PART Defendant Peña's motion for protective order, ECF No. 34.”
“Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion without prejudice.”
“The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's complaints [ECF No. 1] with leave to amend.”
“1. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part without prejudice Document Numbers 81 and 91 ... 2. The Court DENIES without prejudice Document Numbers 100, 112, 116, and 124.”
“For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this R&R, and (2) reversing the Commissioner's decision, and (3) remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Enaiter fails to raise a legitimate basis to stay the third-party examination of Mirama; accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to stay.”
“Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Protective Order. [ECF No. 22.] The Court GRANTS the parties' joint motion and enters the following Protective Order, as submitted by the parties.”
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 | 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 Pettit: 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 Pettit with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pettit, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pettit's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace