Stefan R. Underhill
How Judge Underhill rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Underhill
Stefan R. Underhill is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Underhill received a commission on July 7, 1999. Judge Underhill assumed senior status on November 1, 2022.
Judge Underhill's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Underhill, 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
Motions
File briefs in the required form unless the judge requests or permits a letter brief.
“Unless counsel are requested or granted permission to file a letter brief, briefs should follow the form required by the Local Rules.”
Discovery
Continue efforts to resolve discovery disputes even after briefing.
“Even after a discovery dispute has been briefed, Judge Underhill expects the parties to continue to attempt to resolve the dispute themselves.”
Trial
Pre-mark and exchange exhibits under the pretrial order.
“Judge Underhill requires exhibits to be pre-marked and exchanged in accordance with his pretrial order.”
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 Underhill decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Cautions
In a postjudgment reconsideration request, the court required overlooked controlling law or evidence and rejected repetition of previously decided arguments and unsupported new assertions. This example comes from one employment case.
“do not point to controlling decisions or evidence that I overlooked in my decision.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Steadfast's motion for summary judgment is granted. Doc. No. 65. Shambaugh's motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Doc. No. 64.”
“Shambaugh's motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Doc. No. 64.”
“Therefore, the defendants have not convinced me that they are entitled to attorneys' fees under the standard articulated in Christianburg. Their pending motions for attorneys' fees, docs. no. 63 and 66, are denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied.”
After the predecessor judge dismissed all federal Section 1983 claims and elected to retain the state-law claims, the case transferred to Underhill. Reassessing the Cohill factors without the predecessor's familiarity, he declined supplemental jurisdiction sua sponte. Grounding quote: 'For the foregoing reasons, the action is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state court.' The order shows that after a mid-litigation transfer, a successor judge may independently reweigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and decline jurisdiction the prior judge retained when the successor lacks familiarity and no overlapping federal issue or undue hardship remains.
“For the reasons set forth above, the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, doc. no. 63, is denied.”
“The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 86, is GRANTED, and Lamothe’s Motion for Continuance, Doc. No. 88, is DENIED. The case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the reasons described herein, Speer’s motion for reconsideration, doc. no. 58, is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I deny Atain’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. no. 19) and grant Devost’s cross-motion (doc. no. 29).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss (doc. # 19) is granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the claims raised against Ackerman, Robinson, and McGeehan; and defendants Moore and Alliger are dismissed from the action pursuant to Rule 21.”
“For the following reasons, I grant the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, doc. no. 419, and deny the Defendants’ Daubert motion, doc. no. 678.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Aurora’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, doc. no. 22, is denied and Aurora’s motion to stay discovery, doc. no. 27, is denied as moot.”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 9 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 14 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 13 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 6 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 21 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 25 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 17 |
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 Underhill: 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 Underhill with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Underhill, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Underhill's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace