William I. Garfinkel
Judge Garfinkel no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Garfinkel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Garfinkel weighed the practical value of a sealed transcript and the requesting party's attempted use against a weak presumption of access.
“We agree with the intervenors and find that the relative uselessness of the transcript and the Government’s attempt to get what it otherwise could not obtain in Tax Court weigh against the weak presumption favoring access to the transcript.”
He treated unresolved factual disputes as a reason to preserve retaliation and termination-related discrimination claims for trial.
“this court finds that there are disputed issues of material fact that preclude entry of summary judgment as, to plaintiffs retaliation claim and disability discrimination claim relating to her termination.”
Procedural preferences
Garfinkel required a party seeking to strike a pleading to identify concrete prejudice, not merely a procedural irregularity.
“the Court finds that defendant has failed to carry its burden of showing how it is prejudiced by this amended answer.”
In claim construction, he began with the claim language and then used the specification and prosecution history.
“First, the court must first consider the words of the claims themselves to define the scope of the patented invention.”
Cautions
A litigant who elects a negotiated grievance procedure must exhaust it before pursuing the same personnel matter in court.
“the plaintiff initially elected to challenge her non-selection for promotion under the negotiated grievance procedure but failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her under that procedure”
Fee submissions were scrutinized for excessive, redundant, or unnecessary time and adjusted for the degree of success.
“carefully scrutinized the time records submitted to insure that the time was ‘usefully and reasonably expended,’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, based on the Court’s finding that KFLP is not a disinterested non-party, the Court denies the Motion for Recovery of Costs and Attorney’s Fees by Non-Party Konover Family Limited Partnership [Doc. # 586],”
“the Court grants Defendant’s Motion in Limine [Doc. # 39]”
“denies Plaintiffs Motion in Limine [Doc. # 41] without prejudice to renewal if additional evidence is adduced at trial to warrant an inference that the original report would have been favorable to Plaintiffs claim.”
“The Court finds good cause for Callahan & Blaine to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff, CPS, and, therefore, grants the Motion to Withdraw [Doc. ##212, 215, 216].”
“the Court grants nunc pro tunc the Terwilliger plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their reply to defendant’s amended counterclaim”
“denies defendant’s motion to strike [Doc. # 196].”
“GRANTS Gianni’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. •# 191).”
“For the reasons set forth above, we DENY the Government’s motion [Doc. # 40-1] to release the transcript of the in camera proceeding”
“we GRANT its motion [Doc. #40-2] for continued enforcement of the IRS summons.”
“the Court awards plaintiffs costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, in the amount $183,547.36, against defendant Putnam Board of Education.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Doc. # 7).”
“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is hereby GRANTED as to plaintiffs claim alleging disability discrimination resulting in her non-selection for promotion. Based upon the parties’ 56(a)! and 56(a)2 Statements of Undisputed Issues of Material Fact, affidavits, deposition testimony, exhibits and legal memoranda, this court finds that there are disputed issues of material fact that preclude entry of summary judgment as, to plaintiffs retaliation claim and disability discrimination claim relating to her termination. Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to these claims.”
“plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED as to all counts except as to Count I. As to Count I, the Court finds that plaintiffs are ‘prevailing parties’ as to defendant Putnam, but not as to defendant DCF.”
“GRANTS Magner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doe. # 197).”
“the Court grants summary judgment [Doc. #43] in favor of the City of New Haven on all counts of Plaintiffs complaint. The Court grants summary judgment [Doc. #43] in favor of Defendant Roman on all counts of Plaintiffs complaint except for Count Two, her Section 1983 claim for violation of the Decedent’s Fourth Amendment rights.”
“the Court grants Defendant Natale’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 39] as to all counts except Plaintiffs Count Two.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 392 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 19 days (N = 19).
The six sampled matters consist of four Social Security appeals, one extradition proceeding, and one miscellaneous warrant matter.
A historical record
Judge Garfinkel no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.