Paul L. Friedman
How Judge Friedman rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Friedman
Paul L. Friedman is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Friedman received a commission on June 16, 1994. Judge Friedman assumed senior status on December 31, 2009.
Judge Friedman's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Friedman's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Friedman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Osage Nation v. Department of the Interior, he dismissed an ISDEAA Title IV funding dispute for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Nation had not submitted a valid statutory final offer and the United States had not waived sovereign immunity.
“defendants contend that they have not waived their sovereign immunity because plaintiff never submitted a valid ‘final offer’ under 25 U.S.C. § 5366(c)(6)(A)(iii), and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. ... the Court will grant defendants’ motion.”
In Democracy Partners v. Project Veritas, he denied a motion to admit remote convictions, concluding that their probative value did not substantially outweigh the danger of prejudice under Rule 609(b).
“under section (b) of the Rule, which governs remote convictions ... and which embodies a presumption of inadmissibility, defendants had not met their burden of demonstrating that the probative value of the convictions ‘substantially outweighs [their] prejudicial effect.’”
In United States v. Cook, Friedman granted discovery of firearm detection dog records after finding they had a tenable relationship to the defendant’s still-pending suppression defense.
“A ‘tenable relationship’ surely exists between the preparation of Mr. Cook’s dissipation defense and Trek’s deployment and training records.”
Procedural preferences
In Student Loan Servicing Alliance v. Taylor, he denied a dismissal motion without prejudice because the complaint challenged regulations that had since been replaced, allowing amendment before a renewed merits challenge.
“For now, denying defendants’ motion without prejudice and permitting SLSA to amend its complaint provides a more appropriate avenue to ultimately resolve the merits of this case.”
In State of Alaska v. Department of the Interior, he granted a motion to transfer Alaska's challenge to the District of Alaska, where the operative facts and principal interested parties were centered.
“defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of Alaska is granted.”
Cautions
In Musshorn v. Cao, he declined to consider evidence outside the agency record because the officer had not shown the serious procedural defect required for an exception.
“LT Musshorn has not demonstrated the type of gross procedural deficiencies sufficient to invoke the narrow exceptions to this ‘well-established principle’ of administrative law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ filings, the oral arguments, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will grant defendants’ motion.”
“Having reviewed the complaint, the parties’ briefs, and the entire record in this case, the Court will deny defendants’ motion without prejudice.”
“For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of Alaska is granted.”
“This matter is before the Court on Defendants Andrew Pudimott and Jeremy Fischer’s Motion for Entry of Judgment [Dkt. 86]. The Court will grant the motion.”
“The Court will grant the parties’ Joint Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, approve the parties’ Settlement Agreement [Dkt. No. 251-2], and award attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $700,000.”
“the Court now concludes that the convictions are not admissible as direct evidence and denies the motion in full.”
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions and the relevant authorities, the Court grants defendants’ motion and dismisses Mr. Hurtado’s complaint.”
“defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 5] is GRANTED”
“defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 5] is GRANTED”
“defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 40] is GRANTED”
“the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 21] is hereby granted in part and denied in part.”
“defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 9] is GRANTED”
“plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. No. 6] is DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The available case-level records are not a counted distribution.
- His current docket includes substantial administrative and agency-review litigation, environmental challenges, press-access disputes, and immigration matters.
- His longer-term caseload has also included agricultural-discrimination class actions, release litigation, multidistrict antitrust proceedings, an Affordable Care Act subsidies challenge, and January 6 prosecutions.
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 | 11 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 11 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 15 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 16 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 18 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 18 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 21 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 19 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 22 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 20 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 22 |
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 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not for Judge Friedman: 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 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 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 Friedman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Friedman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Friedman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace