Robert A. Richardson

How Judge Richardson rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Position
magistrate
Appointed by
U.S. District Judges for the District of Connecticut (merit-selected magistrate judge; magistrates are appointed by the district's Article III judges, not the President; renewable eight-year term). Selected by the District Judges (per Chief Judge Janet C. Hall) to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith (effective 2015-06-30); sits at the Hartford federal courthouse.
Commissioned
2016-01-12
Education
The Pennsylvania State University (B.A., 1988); The Ohio State University (Moritz) College of Law (J.D., 1991; Managing Editor, Ohio State Law Journal 1990-91; American Jurisprudence Award; Judge Joseph M. Haerter trial-practice award)
Signed orders read
10

How Judge Richardson decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Social Security appeals on consent, grants remand where the ALJ failed to develop the record — for example, by not obtaining a treating-physician opinion on the claimant's physical RFC.

“plaintiff's motion for an order to remand the Commissioner's decision (Dkt. #17-2) is GRANTED and the Commissioner's motion to affirm that decision (Dkt. #21-1) is DENIED.”

Procedural preferences

On discovery motions to compel, grants relief in part where the information sought is relevant and proportional while denying overbroad requests such as unredacted master, medical, and mental-health files.

“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel unredacted versions of his entire ‘master file’, ‘medical file’, and ‘mental health file.’ The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff's motion to compel documentation of similar incidents and grievances.”

On statutory screening of IFP complaints, recommends dismissal with prejudice as to barred defendants and without prejudice, with leave to refile, as to the rest.

“the undersigned recommends: (i) DISMISSING from suit all named plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Stanley Cavienss; (ii) DISMISSING with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the Office of Child Support Services (‘OCSS’); (iii) DISMISSING without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the Department of Social Services (‘DSS’) due to lack of jurisdiction; and (iv) DISMISSING without prejudice Plaintiff's remaining claims against all other Defendants to permit Plaintiff to refile...”

In a discovery dispute marked by repeated impasses, required future meet-and-confer sessions to occur by recorded video conference and warned that further noncompliance could result in sanctions.

“The Court orders the parties to meet and confer via videoconferencing means and to record any such meetings. All future discovery motions shall include the relevant meet and confer recording as an attachment.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

D'Agostino v. Berryhill (Commissioner of Social Security)
3:19-cv-00610-RAR · 2020-07-23
Motion to reverse (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff's motion for an order to remand the Commissioner's decision (Dkt. #17-2) is GRANTED and the Commissioner's motion to affirm that decision (Dkt. #21-1) is DENIED.”

Motion to affirm (defendant) Denied

“the Commissioner's motion to affirm that decision (Dkt. #21-1) is DENIED.”

Wynne (Estate of Lenetis) v. Town of East Hartford
3:20-cv-01834-JCH · 2022-12-29
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the above reasons, the plaintiff's motions are GRANTED, in part. The Court has concluded that the information sought is relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and not overly burdensome.”

Westry v. Duggan, et al.
3:22-cv-00685-MPS · 2025-03-18
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the undersigned GRANTS in part Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the magistrate judge['s] [prior expert-disclosure ruling] ... For the reasons above, Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. #111) is GRANTED in part.”

Petion v. Chevalier, et al.
3:22-cv-01646-OAW · 2025-03-31
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel unredacted versions of his entire ‘master file’, ‘medical file’, and ‘mental health file.’ The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff's motion to compel documentation of similar incidents and grievances.”

Taylor v. Frazier
3:24-cv-01041-KAD · 2026-02-11
Motions to compel (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Compel, dkt. #87, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”

Motion to quash (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff's Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order, dkt. #89, is DENIED as moot”

Motion for protective order (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff's second Motion for a Protective Order, dkt. #90, is DENIED as moot.”

Cavienss, et al. v. Connecticut OCSS/DSS, et al.
3:25-cv-01268-SFR · 2025-08-18
Screening dismissal (court) Granted

“the undersigned recommends: (i) DISMISSING from suit all named plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Stanley Cavienss; (ii) DISMISSING with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the Office of Child Support Services (‘OCSS’); (iii) DISMISSING without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the Department of Social Services (‘DSS’) due to lack of jurisdiction; and (iv) DISMISSING without prejudice Plaintiff's remaining claims against all other Defendants to permit Plaintiff to refile...”

Lewis v. City of Hartford
3:22-cv-00508-RAR · 2026-03-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23-1) is GRANTED as to Counts ONE, TWO, and THREE, but DENIED as to Count FOUR.”

Denis v. Unisys, LLC
3:25-cv-01845-RAR · 2026-03-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, dkt. #21, is GRANTED on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court grants Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.”

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe
3:26-cv-00417-SFR · 2026-04-20
Motion for leave to serve subpoena (plaintiff) Granted

“After balancing the Arista factors, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff Strike 3’s Motion.”

Taylor v. Frazier
3:24-cv-01041-KAD · 2026-05-08
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, dkt. #115, is DENIED.”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, dkt. #115, Motion to Compel Depositions and Production of Documents and Sanctions, dkt. #119, Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, dkt. #120, Motion for a Protective Order, dkt. #124, and Motion to Quash, dkt. #126-1 are DENIED.”

Motion for temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Denied

“For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction.”

Motion for protective order (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED and she is required to fully respond to Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories by May 15, 2026.”

Motion to quash (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is denied.”

Motion for protective order (defendant) Moot / procedural

“In doing so, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order, dkt. #126, as moot.”

Draft for Judge Richardson with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Richardson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Richardson's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace