Christian Douglas Wright
How Judge Wright rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wright
Christian Douglas Wright has served as a Magistrate in Chancery on the Delaware Court of Chancery since November 2024. He previously directed impact litigation for the Delaware Department of Justice and practiced corporate litigation. He earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Delaware and his law degree at Duke University.
Judge Wright's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Wright's own (checked October 11, 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 11, 2026).
How Judge Wright decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Moran v. Unation, he applied Delaware's amended Section 220 after the company defaulted and ordered production of nearly all requested records. He allowed functional equivalents where the record made it plausible that statutory records did not exist.
“I will therefore enter an order directing Unation to produce the items sought by Category 4, as amended.”
In Hamassian v. Cineverse, he found that the stockholder sought inspection to advance his personal contract interests rather than a stockholder purpose and recommended denial of the books-and-records demands.
“I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Hamassian's purpose for inspection is to advance his personal interests under contracts with Cineverse, not his interests as a Cineverse stockholder.”
In USAB NY v. Glic Health, he rejected a request for judgment on the pleadings because the operating agreement's 'defend' language did not unambiguously require advancement of fees for the plaintiff's own affirmative claims.
“It fails on both parts of USAB's proposed transitive construction: 'defend' does not unambiguously mean 'advance,' nor does it unambiguously mean 'attack' even if it does mean 'advance.'”
Procedural preferences
He keeps Section 220 proceedings within their narrow, summary scope, declining to let a stockholder use post-production discovery about document 'provenance and authenticity' to expand the case beyond the statute's limited inquiry.
“This includes disputes about the provenance or authenticity of those books and records, which require discovery and fact-finding that are beyond the limited scope of Section 220 cases.”
In Judge v. Camber Road Partners, Wright rejected the defendants’ good-faith objection to shifting fees after a successful motion to compel and awarded the plaintiff its requested fees.
“As to defendants’ first contention, a losing party’s good faith by itself is not relevant under Rule 37(a)(4)(A).”
In Leiske v. Kidd, he resolved a dispute about the Fitracks procedure by clarifying that the parties could not modify its quarterly fee-dispute submission requirement.
“As with the 50% payment/escrow threshold, quarterly submission of fee disputes was part of the original Fitracks procedure.”
Cautions
In In re M.D.J., Wright denied a son’s guardianship petition because the evidence did not establish his father’s present incapacity by clear and convincing proof. He acknowledged the family’s safety concerns but found them insufficient to impose a guardianship.
“But Petitioner failed to prove Mr. J.’s current incapacity by the necessary clear and convincing evidence needed.”
In a derivative-standing dispute, Wright rejected Jones’s argument that a voting proxy divested Dorsey of stockholder standing and denied Jones’s pending motions.
“Jones cites no case law in support of this argument.”
In Johnson v. Barnes, he denied specific performance after trial because the parties had not reached a complete enforceable written agreement to sell the property.
“[E]ven if the parties had a valid and enforceable written contract to sell the house -- and they did not -- the court cannot grant petitioner the relief she seeks.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Doing so, on this record, establishes all of the elements necessary under our new Section 220 for an order that awards the stockholder nearly all of the records sought.”
“I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Hamassian's purpose for inspection is to advance his personal interests under contracts with Cineverse, not his interests as a Cineverse stockholder. I recommend that Hamassian's inspection demands be denied.”
“This ownership requirement disposes of Ma's inspection demand here. ... I recommend Ma's inspection demand be denied on that basis.”
“The Petition should be DENIED. Petitioner should not be appointed as guardian of the person and property of Mr. J. at this time.”
“For the reasons explained above, the court denies each of Jones' pending motions.”
“This report recommends that all of defendant's motions be denied. ... This report recommends dismissal of the rest of the counterclaim.”
“Respondent Wilson's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the court grants Respondent Wilson's motion for costs but denies his motion for attorney's fees.”
“I find that Maria has stated a claim under Count I (fraudulent transfer), but not as to Count II (aiding and abetting the fraudulent transfer). Accordingly, I recommend that Defendants' Motion be DENIED as to Count I and GRANTED as to Count II.”
“Applying these principles here, I must deny the Motion. ... Plaintiff Androsky Lugo's Motion for Confidential Treatment is denied without prejudice.”
“Having considered the matter once again, I reject Petitioner's argument. ... I conclude ... that I cannot grant the relief requested, so I must deny the Amended Petition.”
“The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Dismissal is appropriate on both grounds asserted by respondent.”
“I adopt defendants' proposed language for paragraph 23. ... Having chosen to tie themselves to this standard, I hold the parties to it.”
Draft for Judge Wright with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wright, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wright's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace