S. Dave Vatti
How Judge Vatti rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Vatti decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Ties discovery relevance tightly to the operative pleadings, denying a motion to compel sourcing discovery where the pleaded claims do not put the goods' authenticity at issue.
“For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF 44) is DENIED without prejudice.”
Conducts granular proportionality balancing on a motion to compel, granting it in part while limiting overbroad requests.
“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.”
Cautions
In the sampled sanctions dispute, he declined to police law-firm marketing conduct without concrete, materially prejudicial misconduct.
“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”
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