S. Dave Vatti
How Judge Vatti rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Vatti
S. Dave Vatti has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Connecticut since March 2021. He earned degrees from Columbia University and the University of Connecticut School of Law and previously headed the U.S. Attorney's Office's Violent Crime and Narcotics Unit.
Judge Vatti's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Vatti, 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
No routine courtesy copies are required for electronic filings.
“Judge Vatti does not require courtesy copies of any materials filed electronically.”
Motions
Seek leave by motion before filing a sur-reply.
“Sur-reply briefs may not be filed without prior permission of the Court. If a party believes that a sur-reply is necessary, that party should file a motion seeking permission to sur-reply”
Discovery
When both sides have counsel, meet and confer over discovery, then jointly call chambers if the dispute remains.
“Counsel must meet and confer in person or by telephone pursuant to Local Rule 37(a). (2) If areas of dispute remain despite good faith negotiation, counsel must jointly call Judge Vatti's chambers and request a discovery conference.”
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 Vatti decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a disability appeal, remanded where the administrative law judge misstated the medical record and did not explain rejection of the claimant’s symptom account. This is an example from one consent case.
“Because the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s bladder condition misstated the medical record, it does not provide a comprehensible rationale for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective statements of her symptoms.”
Procedural preferences
In Conair LLC v. Lighthouse Wholesale, LLC, he denied sourcing discovery without prejudice because the pleaded claims did not put the goods’ authenticity at issue.
“For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF 44) is DENIED without prejudice.”
In Guardian Flight LLC v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, he granted a motion to compel in part, requiring answers to some requests while limiting discovery about other insurers and sustaining an objection to an overbroad request.
“By January 31, 2025, plaintiffs shall comply with ROG 1-3, 5-8 and RFP 1, 3, 6-14 as limited above. ... Plaintiffs' objections to RFP 2 are sustained.”
In a product-liability discovery dispute, he denied further insurer and broker discovery after finding that disclosed policy materials met the movant’s need and the additional inquiry was disproportionate.
“Dennis’ Motion to Compel discovery of Pasta Tech’s communications with its insurance broker and insurer is DENIED as disproportionate to the needs of the case.”
Cautions
In Solid 21, Inc. v. Breitling U.S.A., Inc., he denied sanctions and counsel disqualification after finding no substantial likelihood that the challenged publicity would materially prejudice the case.
“The defendants' Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff, or in the Alternative, For Issue Sanctions... the Disqualification of Hecht Partners, Revocation of David Hecht's Pro Hac Vice Admission and a Referral to Various State Bar Disciplinary Authorities (ECF No. 163) is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The defendants' Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff, or in the Alternative, For Issue Sanctions... the Disqualification of Hecht Partners, Revocation of David Hecht's Pro Hac Vice Admission and a Referral to Various State Bar Disciplinary Authorities (ECF No. 163) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for an Emergency Hearing and Sanctions (ECF No. 172) is DENIED as moot with the respect to the request for an emergency hearing and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.”
“defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF. No. 166) is DENIED as moot as the defendants represented that they have complied with this Court's April 28, 2021, Discovery Order”
“Accordingly, I hereby RECOMMEND that the defendant's plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment, that is, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951(a) and Count Three, that is, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8) be accepted.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF 44) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“By January 31, 2025, plaintiffs shall comply with ROG 1-3, 5-8 and RFP 1, 3, 6-14 as limited above. ... Plaintiffs' objections to RFP 2 are sustained.”
Protective order implementing a separate ruling that granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file third-party early discovery (a copyright-infringement John Doe / BitTorrent suit). It sets the terms for a Rule 45 ISP subpoena to Frontier with John Doe notice and quash-window safeguards and anonymity protections. As an administrative implementation order it resolves no contested party motion. The order states: 'As discussed in the docket ruling granting the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Party Early Discovery, the plaintiff ("STRIKE 3") may commence early discovery...'
“The objections are overruled, and plaintiff shall answer Interrogatories 2 and 3 ... The request to compel compliance is denied without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff shall complete HIPAA records authorizations for each responsive medical or mental health provider for the responsive period. ... Plaintiff's request to stay these deadlines so she can file an objection is DENIED”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF 16, is DENIED”
“Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm, ECF 22, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF 19, is GRANTED”
“the Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm, ECF 23, is DENIED.”
“I recommend that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF 30, be DENIED”
“the Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm, ECF 32, be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration, ECF 307, is DENIED”
“his initial Motion for Reconsideration, ECF 296, is denied as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Defendant’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 32, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 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 Vatti: 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 Vatti with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vatti, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vatti's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace