Thomas P. Smith
How Judge Smith rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Smith no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Smith
Thomas P. Smith served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Connecticut from November 1979 through June 2015 and on recall until July 2021. Before joining the bench, he was a federal prosecutor and taught contract law at the University of Connecticut School of Law.
How Judge Smith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Smith denied summary relief where poor drafting still yielded only one reasonable contract interpretation rather than a genuine ambiguity.
“That a contract is poorly drafted does not automatically qualify it as presenting disputed issues of material fact.”
He required concrete evidence of probable cause before authorizing a prejudgment remedy after an employment-discrimination hearing.
“the Court remains unconvinced that there is probable cause that the plaintiff will secure a judgment in the amount of $125,000.”
Procedural preferences
Smith enforced expert-disclosure deadlines after already granting an extension.
“the time for the plaintiffs to seek another expert witness to replace Ms. Lisi, as well as to provide a report from Dr. Pomeraniec, whom the plaintiffs clearly disclosed as an expert witness who could testify at trial, has passed.”
He required a proposed amended complaint and identification of the proposed changes before allowing amendment.
“plaintiff fails to indicate which facts in the complaint that he seeks to amend. Furthermore, plaintiff fails to attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion.”
Cautions
Smith rejected an added motion that would duplicate arguments already awaiting decision.
“excessive motion practice that has marred the sorry progress of this case to date.”
He found a bare assertion of mistake too vague to support relief from a settlement-based dismissal.
“without further explanation and/or argument, this court is unable to determine either the nature or the legitimacy of the ‘inadvertence’ and ‘mistake’ complained of here.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion for Appointment of Counsel [doc. # 44] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“the plaintiffs motion to remand this case to a different ALJ is DENIED.”
“the plaintiffs motion for judgment on the record should be GRANTED”
“the defendant’s motion to affirm should be DENIED.”
“the plaintiffs motions for a deficiency judgment and for a prejudgment remedy are both GRANTED in the amount of $495,846.89.”
“the plaintiffs motion for a judgment reversing the Commissioner should be GRANTED”
“The Commissioner's cross motion should be DENIED.”
“Sedona’s motion for partial summary judgment (dkt. # 108) is DENIED in part as to count one requesting a declaratory judgment, as to liability on counts two and three alleging breach of contract and as to counterclaim one. It is GRANTED in part as to Open Solutions’ third and fourth counterclaims.”
“Open Solutions’ motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 114) is GRANTED in part as to counts one, two and three and as to counterclaim one seeking a declaratory judgment and DENIED in part as to counterclaim three.”
“plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. # 44) is DENIED”
“plaintiffs motion for a prejudgment remedy (Dkt. #44) is DENIED”
“defendant’s motion for a prejudgment remedy (Dkt. # 66) is DENIED.”
“plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees and costs [Dkt. #68] is GRANTED, minus deductions.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal (Dkt. 32) is therefore DENIED, without prejudice.”
“defendants’ motion to compel (dkt.# 26) is DENIED.”
“Georgia-Pacific’s motion to compel Baker (dkt.# 167) is GRANTED absent objection.”
“Georgia-Pacific’s motion to compel Texas Roadhouse (dkt.# 168) is GRANTED.”
“Home Depot’s motion to compel (dkt.# 169) is GRANTED absent objection.”
“The plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order (dkt.# 58) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed decisions cover consent Social Security appeals, discovery, employment, commercial, postjudgment, trial, and preliminary-remedy disputes but do not establish the distribution of Smith's full caseload.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Smith was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2021.
| 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 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.
A historical record
Judge Smith no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.