Omar A. Williams
How Judge Williams rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Williams
Omar Antonio Williams is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Williams received a commission on November 12, 2021.
Judge Williams's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Williams, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
For an electronically filed document over 20 pages including attachments, provide two paper copies within three business days.
“within three (3) business days after a document is filed electronically, counsel must provide chambers with two (2) paper copies of any e-filed documents in excess of twenty (20) pages, including all accompanying exhibits and attachments.”
Motions
No pre-filing conference is required for a dispositive motion.
“Judge Williams does not require a pre-filing conference before a dispositive motion is filed.”
Conferences
Request a settlement conference through a joint docket filing if all parties agree it may be productive.
“If the parties mutually agree that a settlement conference might be productive, they should docket a joint request”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Williams decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In an online defamation suit, the court required the alleged harm to arise from Connecticut business solicitation before exercising jurisdiction under the state long-arm provision; account suspension did not supply that link.
“Plaintiff’s claim for defamation is entirely unrelated to any such solicitation.”
In an insurance summary judgment ruling, the court confined the consumer-protection claim to the pleaded theory and declined a new claims-handling theory raised in opposition.
“The court will not consider claims raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment.”
In Aliu, denied a broad request to exclude collision evidence before trial because the defendants identified no specific evidence for exclusion and the circumstances of the crash could bear on damages despite admitted liability.
“Defendants fail to point to any specific evidence they wish to exclude.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [27], hereby is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 81, is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
“Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement, ECF No. 21, is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. If Plaintiffs wish to amend their complaint to cure its jurisdictional and factual deficiencies, they may do so within thirty (30) days of this ruling.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“The action is DISMISSED as to Hartford (with leave to amend) and DISMISSED as to HPD (without leave to amend).”
“The Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is DENIED in part and is GRANTED in part.”
“The Motion for Permission to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 25, is DENIED.”
“Given this ruling, the Motion to Terminate Stay of Discovery, ECF No. 23, is DENIED as moot.”
“For the reasons discussed herein, it is hereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is DENIED. Given this ruling, the pending motions to stay discovery, ECF No. 29, and to quash a subpoena, ECF No. 30, are denied as moot.”
“Accordingly, it is thereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. The action is dismissed, and the Clerk of Court is asked, respectfully, to please close this case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED and the petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED. The Clerk respectfully is instructed to please close this case.”
“Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 40, hereby is DENIED. The case will not be reopened, and Plaintiff will not be permitted to amend the complaint.”
“The Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED.”
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 | 85 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 8 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 40 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 85 | 40 |
| Sep 2025 | 90 | 33 |
| Mar 2025 | 87 | 30 |
| Sep 2024 | 86 | 26 |
| Mar 2024 | 63 | 23 |
| Sep 2023 | 101 | 14 |
| Mar 2023 | 74 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 47 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
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 U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, not for Judge Williams: 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 | 1,471 | 6.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 227 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 833 | 5.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 401 | 13.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 36.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,471 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,501 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,468 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,598 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,456 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,683 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,877 | 9.2 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 Williams with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Williams, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Williams's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace