Laura D. Hatcher
How Judge Hatcher rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hatcher
Laura D. Hatcher has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware since April 2023. She earned undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Maryland. Before joining the bench, she practiced at Richards Layton and DLA Piper and served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Delaware.
Judge Hatcher's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hatcher, 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.
- Motion To Teleconference To Resolve ( Discovery / Protective Order ) Disputes ↗
- Scheduling Order in Patent Cases ↗
- Scheduling Order in Non -Patent Cases ↗
Key rules
Discovery
The discovery teleconference form calls for a verbal meet and confer including Delaware and lead counsel for each party.
“The following attorneys, including at least one Delaware Counsel and at least one Lead Counsel per party, participated in a verbal meet-and-confer (in person and/or by telephone) on the following date(s): [LIST DATE(S)]”
Discovery
The sample nonpatent scheduling order calls for initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures within five days of entry unless the parties agree otherwise.
“Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the parties shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) within five days of the date the Court enters this Order.”
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).
- In Re: Amendment to Procedures For Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order Rescinding Mediation of Appeals from Bankruptcy Court ↗
- Standing Order No. 2022-2 Regarding Referrals to Magistrate Judges for Alternative Dispute Resolution ↗
- Originally posted 8-16-2022: Standing Order Regarding Revision to Electronic Case Filing Policies and Procedures ↗
- Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ↗
How Judge Hatcher decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a copyright case, she declined to narrow the alleged domestic infringement at the pleading stage because defendants’ factual objection was better suited to discovery.
“Defendants’ arguments seem better suited for the discovery process.”
Procedural preferences
In a Fair Housing Act case, she denied a blanket request to hold the entire case remotely while allowing the plaintiff to seek remote access for a specific scheduled hearing or conference.
“While I deny Plaintiff’s instant request for a blanket order making this case wholly remote, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting to appear remotely for a specific hearing or conference scheduled in this case if necessary and appropriate.”
Cautions
Hatcher took the bench recently (sworn April 28, 2023). Because she previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Civil Division, most pre-2023 references to her name are her appearances as government counsel rather than judicial rulings; only orders she signed as a judge from 2023 onward are hers. On REFERRED matters her Reports & Recommendations are RECOMMENDATIONS subject to de novo review on objection: confirm the district judge's adoption/modification before relying on a recommended outcome (e.g. in Bellinger, Andrews adopted the R&R in part and rejected its reasoning in part). Only her 636(c) CONSENT-case orders are final.
“Before her appointment, Magistrate Judge Hatcher served as the chief of the civil division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware.”
In a Delaware insurance-coverage referral, Hatcher recommended dismissal when an indispensable Ohio company could not be joined and the dispute centered on Ohio law.
“the Ohio company is a necessary and indispensable party that cannot be joined here for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I will adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation with respect to Counts I and II of the Complaint. I will reject-in-part the Report and Recommendation with respect to Counts III and IV. I therefore GRANT Defendants' motions to dismiss. Dismissal is without prejudice.”
“I recommend that the Additional Insureds’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside the Settlement Agreement (D.I. 177) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Civil Proceedings (D.I. 199) is GRANTED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case (D.I. 186), Motion to Reopen Case (D.I. 194), and Motion to Amend Motion to Reopen Case (D.I. 197) are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Reimbursement of Attorney Costs and Fees (D.I. 188) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that Fenix Internet’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim be DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, and the case REMANDED for further administrative proceedings in accordance with the findings contained herein.”
“Accordingly, I recommend that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment be DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, and the case REMANDED for further administrative proceedings in accordance with the findings contained herein.”
“Accordingly, I recommend that Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment be DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART”
“Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.”
“Accordingly, I recommend that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice, excepting the transcripts quoted and referenced therein.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds that the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendant in her official capacity and denying the Motion on all other grounds. (D.I. 96).”
“I deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint (D.I. 104)”
“grant-in-part Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Amended Complaint (D.I. 105).”
“I recommend denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment as to John/Jane Does 1-50, Veronica Tilghman. (D.I. 108, D.I. 130).”
“I recommend denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order. (D.I. 127).”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend GRANTING-IN-PART Defendant’s motion by dismissing his discrimination claims with prejudice. I recommend otherwise DENYING Defendant’s motion.”
“I recommend DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 4).”
“I DENY as premature Plaintiff’s ‘Objection to Dismissal and Motion for Expedited Trial with Request for Rule 16 Scheduling Order.’ (D.I. 21).”
“Similarly, I DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for a Speedy Trial and Injunctive Relief (D.I. 30).”
“I DENY Plaintiff’s ‘Motion to Waive Pacer Fees’ (D.I. 39).”
“I recommend GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 17) without prejudice and with leave for Plaintiff to file an amended pleading within 30 days of the date the District Court adopts this Report and Recommendation.”
“In light of paragraph 5, I DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (D.I. 34).”
“In light of paragraph 5, I DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument (D.I. 38) and Motion for Leave to file Out of Time (D.I. 44) as moot in light of paragraph 5 of this Order and Report and Recommendation.”
“For the reasons set forth above, I recommend denying SSMG’s motion to compel arbitration (D.I. 34) without prejudice to renew after limited discovery.”
“I recommend denying Sciath Security’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 31) as mooted by Sciath Security’s dismissal from this action (D.I. 52).”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
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 Delaware, not for Judge Hatcher: 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 | 1,391 | 9.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 244 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,042 | 10.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 68 | 21 months |
| Closed during trial | 37 | 42.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,391 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,331 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,357 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,925 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,823 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,914 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,001 | 5.4 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 Hatcher with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hatcher, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hatcher's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace