Vernon D. Oliver
How Judge Oliver rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Oliver
Vernon Dion Oliver is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Oliver received a commission on October 18, 2023.
Judge Oliver's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Oliver, 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
Counsel must deliver one courtesy copy for any filing over 25 pages, counting attachments.
“For any case in which a party is represented by counsel, counsel must promptly mail or deliver to chambers a single courtesy hard copy of any filing, including exhibits, attachments, or supporting memoranda of law, if the filing (taken together with those exhibits, attachments, or memoranda) exceeds 25 pages in length.”
Motions
For most counseled civil cases, request a pre-filing conference before a motion to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings, or for summary judgment.
“In all cases except bankruptcy appeals, social security appeals, habeas cases, or cases in which a party is proceeding pro se, Judge Oliver requires parties to request a pre-filing conference before filing motions to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings, or for summary judgment.”
Discovery
A motion to dismiss does not itself stay discovery; a motion to stay must be filed and approved.
“The filing of a motion to dismiss shall not result in a stay of discovery or extend the time for completing discovery absent extraordinary circumstances and the filing and approval of a motion to stay discovery.”
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 Oliver decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Helo, Oliver let a securities control-person claim proceed past dismissal because the complaint alleged the individual defendants were high-level executives; their actual control required fact development.
“it is premature to resolve this issue on a motion to dismiss.”
In Falzarano, Oliver denied suppression of evidence first found by hospital security because the record showed the search occurred before police contact and without joint action with law enforcement.
“there was no joint activity or coordination of action between YNHH and the NHPD.”
Procedural preferences
In Laurion, Oliver allowed voluntary dismissal without prejudice where litigation was still at an early stage and the defendants had shown no substantial legal prejudice beyond the prospect of another suit.
“the early stage of this litigation counsels heavily in favor of granting Laurion’s motion.”
In Conservation Law Foundation, denied exclusion of a modeling expert after finding that challenges to a model validated for limited conditions affected the weight of her testimony and could be tested at trial.
“Plaintiff’s arguments go to the weight, and not to the admissibility, of Dr. French-McCay’s use of the SIMAP.”
Cautions
In Theraplant, Oliver granted the insurer summary judgment on a business income loss claim because the insured did not connect its suspension of operations to the claimed loss. A covered fire alone did not establish the policy’s required causal link.
“Plaintiff simply assumes the existence of a causal relationship, but the Court cannot do the same.”
In Barteca, imposed a $3,500 sanction after defense counsel submitted nonexistent case quotations and erroneous citations, and required future filings to link each legal authority.
“numerous case quotes that do not exist, erroneous citations, and misrepresentations of the law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, all claims are dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within sixty days of this order, Plaintiffs may move to file an amended complaint.”
“In sum, Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied to the extent it seeks dismissal based on the statute of limitations, but it is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of claims against Defendant Quiros.”
“the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to dismiss this action without prejudice (ECF No. 30).”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) are denied as moot.”
“For the reasons described above, Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 68) is denied.”
“Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have forfeited the argument they now raise and denies their motion for clarification or reconsideration.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the parties’ cross-motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 715, 717).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants National Fire’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) and denies Theraplant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 54). Judgment is entered in National Fire’s favor.”
“Because the Court cannot exercise either federal question or diversity jurisdiction over this action, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the action is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and the Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to close the action.”
“As a result, the only remedy for the harms Plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint is against the Government—not Dukate—pursuant to the FTCA. ... Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Dukate’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).”
“The Court concludes Supreme Court precedent forecloses the Bivens remedy for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Wagner. The Court grants Wagner’s motion to dismiss. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS both motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 38, 44). The Clerk is kindly instructed to close this case.”
“Accordingly, considering the Enron factors and that ‘all doubts must be resolved in favor of trial on the merits’ the Court denies the motion for default judgment and relieves Ms. Jimenez from default.”
“The Court next grants Mr. Peralta’s motion for preliminary injunction, as the record establishes that there is entitlement to preliminary relief.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to suppress (ECF No. 34) is DENIED.”
“The petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED. The Clerk is respectfully directed to close this case.”
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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 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 Oliver: 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 Oliver with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Oliver, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Oliver's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace