Robert A. Richardson
How Judge Richardson rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Richardson
Robert A. Richardson has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Connecticut since January 2016. He earned his law degree from Ohio State University and previously represented employees in employment and civil rights matters.
Judge Richardson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Richardson, 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
Routine courtesy copies of electronically filed pleadings and motions are not required.
“Judge Richardson does not require courtesy copies of all pleadings and motions filed electronically.”
Motions
Seek leave by motion before filing a sur-reply.
“If a party truly believes that sur-reply is necessary, that party should seek permission to file a sur-reply by motion.”
Motions
File requests for relief on the docket rather than by letter brief.
“Judge Richardson prefers that all requests for relief be filed through CM/ECF and on the record.”
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 Richardson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In D’Agostino v. Berryhill, he granted the claimant’s motion to remand and denied the Commissioner’s motion to affirm after finding the administrative record inadequately developed.
“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
In Petion v. Chevalier, he partly granted a motion to compel records of similar incidents while denying demands for entire unredacted 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.”
In Cavienss v. Connecticut OCSS/DSS, he recommended dismissing some claims with prejudice and others without prejudice after screening the complaint.
“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.”
In a prejudgment-remedy hearing, required a party to disclose a planned witness on its own witness list even when the opponent listed that witness; the opponent had no obligation to call her, and the late addition would deprive it of preparation time.
“To ensure that each party may call a particular witness, the witness must be disclosed on the party’s own witness list.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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.”
“the Commissioner's motion to affirm that decision (Dkt. #21-1) is DENIED.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Compel, dkt. #87, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order, dkt. #89, is DENIED as moot”
“Plaintiff's second Motion for a Protective Order, dkt. #90, is DENIED as moot.”
“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...”
“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.”
“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.”
“After balancing the Arista factors, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff Strike 3’s Motion.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, dkt. #115, is 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.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction.”
“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.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is denied.”
“In doing so, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order, dkt. #126, as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Reversing or Remanding the Commissioner’s Decision (Dkt. #16) is DENIED”
“the Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm the Decision (Dkt. #19) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order, dkt. #36, is DENIED.”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Richardson: 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 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