Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
How Judge McCormick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In assessing whether a controlling stockholder's compensation deal was fair, she looks past a party's own framing of what it 'gave' versus what it 'got' to ask the more basic question of whether the arrangement was even necessary to obtain the claimed benefit -- an unproven necessity undercuts a fair-price defense even where the process looked extensive on paper.
“Swept up by the rhetoric of 'all upside,' or perhaps starry eyed by Musk's superstar appeal, the board never asked the $55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its goals?”
She credits witnesses for candor even when their own testimony damages their position -- open acknowledgment that a negotiation was not adversarial persuades her that a controlled mindset existed, rather than counting against the witnesses.
“In credit to these witnesses, their testimony was truthful. They did not take a position 'on the other side' of Musk. It was a cooperative venture. There were no positional negotiations.”
On a Section 271 'sale of substantially all assets' challenge, she gives real weight to whether the seller's basic business identity survived the transaction, not just the size of what was sold relative to prior blockbuster cases.
“Mandiant was a cybersecurity company before the Sale. It is a cybersecurity company after the Sale. Although selling the FireEye Business may alter course in how the Company operates, the change is not qualitatively so significant as to 'strike a blow' to Mandiant's 'heart.'”
Procedural preferences
She holds firm to trial and case-schedule dates once set, even amid highly public, high-pressure litigation, and treats continuing operational harm from delay as outweighing a party's desire for more time -- expect her to protect a set trial date over a late-breaking request to push it back.
“I previously rejected Defendants' arguments in response to Twitter's motion to expedite, making clear that the longer the delay until trial, the greater the risk of irreparable harm to Twitter. ... I am convinced that even four weeks' delay would risk further harm to Twitter too great to justify.”
The bar to expedite a case or amend a pleading is deliberately low and movant-friendly in her courtroom -- she will grant leave to amend or expedition on a merely 'colorable' or 'non-frivolous' showing, reserving the harder scrutiny for the merits later.
“This court interprets Rule 15(a) to 'allow for liberal amendment in the interest of resolving cases on the merits.' ... This court rarely declines amendments under Rule 15(a) based on futility.”
A party invoking non-testifying-expert privilege to withhold analyses that also make the party a fact witness will not succeed if the same analyses are cited in that party's own pleadings -- she treats reliance on an analysis in your own counterclaims as forfeiting any privilege over it.
“Defendants expressly relied on the Data Scientists' preliminary analysis to justify making additional information requests and later terminating the Merger Agreement. Defendants also rely on the Analyses throughout their counterclaims. In these circumstances, it is clear that the Data Scientists did not act solely as non-testifying experts.”
She rarely grants interlocutory appeal, even from a substantial advancement ruling, holding that routine contract and waiver questions do not meet Delaware's high bar for disrupting a case's normal progression.
“Although the Bench Ruling resolved a substantial issue of material importance, this order denies the application because the benefits of interlocutory appeal do not outweigh the costs.”
Cautions
Discovery obligations are not optional even for a self-represented, sympathetic-seeming party -- repeated, unrepentant noncompliance with a compel order, even after direct warnings from the bench, will end in a default judgment and fee-shifting against that party.
“Given Wollner's egregious misconduct, it is appropriate to grant PearPop's motion for a default judgment.”
A pattern of ignoring court orders and discovery obligations -- not a single lapse -- draws both summary judgment against the noncompliant party and an award of the other side's attorneys' fees, because it crosses from ordinary litigation friction into bad faith.
“Defendants have engaged in dilatory tactics throughout this litigation, such as refusing to comply with a motion to compel and failing to appear at the August 4, 2020 evidentiary hearing. Defendants' conduct in this action amounts to 'a highly disturbing pattern of deceitful, bad faith conduct.'”
A motion for reargument that merely repackages arguments already made and rejected -- even when dressed up as citing a new authority -- will fail if the new authority does not actually change the legal standard the court already applied.
“The Opinion, therefore, did not misapprehend any legal principle germane to the control group analysis that would affect the outcome. Thus, Sheldon does not support reargument.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Turning to the legal analysis, Plaintiffs' motion to expedite is granted. To obtain expedition, a party must 'articulate a sufficiently colorable claim and show a sufficient possibility of a threatened irreparable injury' absent expedited proceedings.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO is denied. ... Although Plaintiffs have demonstrated harm sufficient to support expedition, there does not seem harm proximate enough to warrant a TRO.”
“The exceptions are overruled. The Magistrate's Final Reports dated January 29, 2024 and June 17, 2024, are adopted and final.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts III through V is denied, except that Pugh and Harrison are dismissed from Count V.”
“Based on the defendants' representations, I am denying the plaintiff's motions, albeit without prejudice to re-raise the requests if events warrant.”
“Accordingly, the defendants' request for leave to move for summary judgment is denied.”
“Based on the authorities cited to me, therefore, California law is not as clear as LBG argues. The motion for reargument is denied.”
“This post-trial decision enters judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the compensation plan is subject to review under the entire fairness standard, the defendants bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair, and they failed to meet their burden.”
“This letter resolves Respondent TransPerfect Global, Inc.'s objections to Custodian Robert Pincus's fee petitions for legal expenses incurred between January 2021 and March 2023. TransPerfect's objections are overruled, with one narrow exception explained below.”
“Although the Bench Ruling resolved a substantial issue of material importance, this order denies the application because the benefits of interlocutory appeal do not outweigh the costs.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants.”
“Defendants' motion to amend is granted. Court of Chancery Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be 'freely given when justice so requires.'”
“I previously rejected Defendants' arguments in response to Twitter's motion to expedite, making clear that the longer the delay until trial, the greater the risk of irreparable harm to Twitter. ... I am convinced that even four weeks' delay would risk further harm to Twitter too great to justify.”
“Rule 26(b)(4)(B) does not protect the Analyses that lie at the heart of this lawsuit. Because Rule 26(b)(4)(B) does not protect the Analyses, it does not protect documents or communications relating to those Analyses.”
Put Judge McCormick's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge McCormick actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge McCormick's own signed orders and cites them.