Thomas O. Farrish
How Judge Farrish rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Farrish
Thomas O. Farrish has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Connecticut since January 2020. A University of Connecticut School of Law graduate, he practiced commercial litigation at Day Pitney before joining the bench.
Judge Farrish's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Farrish, 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 formal motions instead of letter briefs.
“Judge Farrish does not allow letter briefs. Formal motions should be filed.”
Motions
Seek prior permission before filing a sur-reply.
“Sur-reply briefs may not be filed without prior permission of the Court.”
Discovery
When assigned for all purposes or no referring-judge procedure applies, raise discovery disputes by written Local Rule 37 motion.
“those disputes should be raised by a written motion that complies with Local Rule 37.”
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 Farrish decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jose G. v. Kijakazi, Farrish remanded the Social Security claim for rehearing but declined to order an immediate calculation of benefits because the record did not conclusively establish disability.
“a remand solely for the calculation of benefits is an extraordinary action ... reserved for cases where the record conclusively establishes both a total disability and an inability to work.”
Procedural preferences
In Zeitler v. Nationwide, Farrish granted some discovery requests but denied others that he found facially overbroad or unsupported by the case's claims, allowing narrowly tailored renewal of some requests.
“The Court concludes that the following discovery requests are facially overbroad and would be unduly burdensome to comply with:”
In Gile v. Town of Windham, Farrish denied a late request to modify the scheduling order because the movant had not shown diligence during the earlier discovery period.
“a profound failure of diligence weighs heavily against such a motion, and moderate prejudice is not enough to tip the scales in its favor.”
In Diesa v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Farrish stayed discovery while an arbitration motion was pending. He found a substantial arbitration question and that the plaintiffs’ concern about possible evidence loss did not justify continuing broad discovery at that stage.
“While the Court understands the Plaintiffs’ concern, it is insufficient to deny a stay.”
In an expert-evidence sealing dispute, he required a showing beyond the parties’ confidentiality labels and denied ten motions to keep filings sealed.
“a party’s confidentiality designation does not control the sealing analysis.”
Cautions
In Manson v. Caron, Farrish recommended denying the prisoner's IFP application after his six-month account statement showed $2,935.17 in spending and outside deposits; he found that the applicant had not shown his expenses were necessary.
“While Mr. Manson does not currently have the $405.00 filing fee in his account, this is the result of his own voluntary spending decisions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse or Remand the Commissioner's Decision (ECF No. 17) is therefore DENIED”
“the Defendant's Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.”
“the Commissioner's Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) With Reversal and Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.”
“The Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Reversing the Commissioner's Decision (ECF No. 12) is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an order remanding for calculation of benefits, and DENIED AS MOOT to the extent that it seeks an order remanding for a rehearing”
“the Plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“I recommend that Judge Shea deny the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”
“the Plaintiff's motion to reverse with an order for an award and calculation of benefits is DENIED, but her alternative motion to reverse and remand for a new hearing is GRANTED. The Commissioner's motion to affirm is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“The Commissioner's motion to affirm is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“the Plaintiff's motion to reverse with an order for an award and calculation of benefits is DENIED, but his alternative motion to reverse and remand for a new hearing is GRANTED. The Commissioner's motion for entry of judgment is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“The Commissioner's motion for entry of judgment is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“the Plaintiff's motion to reverse with an order for an award and calculation of benefits is DENIED, but her alternative motion to reverse and remand for a new hearing is GRANTED. The Defendant's motion to affirm is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“The Defendant's motion to affirm is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner; denying 33 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 11/30/2020.”
“the Plaintiff's motion to reverse with an order for an award and calculation of benefits is DENIED, but her alternative motion to reverse and remand for a new hearing is GRANTED. The Commissioner's motion to affirm is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“The Commissioner's motion to affirm is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“the Defendant's Motion for an Order Affirming the Commissioner's Decision is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner is DENIED.”
“the Plaintiff's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner is DENIED, and the Commissioner's motion to affirm is GRANTED.”
“ORDER denying 22 Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner; granting 25 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 7/27/22.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His docket includes consent Social Security appeals in which he enters final judgment, along with referred discovery, prisoner, and other dispositive matters for district judges.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Farrish: 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 Farrish with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Farrish, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Farrish's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace