Tiffany R. Johnson
How Judge Johnson rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Johnson
Tiffany Rene Johnson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Johnson received a commission on January 2, 2025.
Judge Johnson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Johnson, 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.
Key rules
Motions
Objections to a magistrate judge report and responses are limited to fifteen pages absent approval.
“Objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) and responses to objections shall be limited to fifteen (15) pages, absent prior approval from the Court.”
Discovery
Do not file a discovery motion without prior court approval.
“The parties shall not file discovery motions (including motions to compel, motions for protective orders, and motions for sanctions) absent prior approval from the Court.”
Discovery
Meet and confer in person before presenting a discovery dispute.
“the parties must first meet and confer in-person to attempt to resolve the dispute.”
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).
How Judge Johnson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gaines, the judge allowed a Title IX funding theory to reach limited discovery because the pleading plausibly alleged federal assistance. At summary judgment, she required evidence that the NCAA actually received federal funds and granted judgment when the record showed separate payment streams to the research universities.
“Here, there is no evidence that the NCAA ever received, or could have received, federal funds. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims cannot proceed.”
For interim relief in Martinez, the judge found a concrete irreparable injury in continued collection of charges that allegedly persisted after a support-order modification, where the collection impaired family support and carried a threat of incarceration. The preliminary injunction addressed erroneous charges while the case proceeds.
“collection against her of erroneously accumulated debts, that this enforcement hinders”
In a challenge to a jail book-delivery policy, she concluded that the replacement policy satisfied the First Amendment after applying all four Turner factors.
“Because all four Turner factors indicate that Defendants’ policy is reasonable, the Court concludes that the New Policy does not violate the First Amendment.”
Procedural preferences
In Singh's case, she reviewed an unopposed magistrate judge's recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it as the court's order.
“The Court has reviewed the Final R&R for clear error and finds none. The Court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions in the Final R&R [16] as the opinion and order of the Court.”
Her published civil case guidelines stay discovery and Local Rule 16 obligations until fourteen days after a ruling on a dispositive motion, and require a certificate of compliance within seven days of assignment.
“[i]f a defendant files a dispositive motion, including a motion seeking partial disposition of the case, the parties' discovery obligations and obligations under Local Rule 16 are stayed until fourteen (14) days after an order on the motion is entered by the Court.”
In Spizzirri Law v. Yellen, Johnson denied an unopposed motion to vacate a responsive-pleading deadline and instead set specific dates for the amended complaint and response.
“ORDER by docket entry only DENYING 15 Unopposed Motion to Vacate Responsive Pleading Deadline. Plaintiffs' deadline to file an Amended Complaint is 1/21/2026. Defendants' deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint is 2/4/2026.”
In Lopez v. The Sound Factory, LLC, she allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint under Rule 15 after finding that justice required leave to amend.
“The Court finds that justice so requires that Plaintiffs be permitted to file an Amended Complaint.”
In Davis, objections that merely repeated arguments to the magistrate judge did not trigger a fresh review. Johnson separately considered the objection to Younger abstention and rejected that rationale while adopting the remaining grounds for dismissal.
“A party’s reiteration of her original arguments that were already presented to the Magistrate Judge is insufficient to trigger de novo review.”
In Chumley, the judge treated a bill of particulars as distinct from discovery and denied it after the defendant acknowledged having enough information to prepare a defense.
“A bill of particulars is not a ‘carte blanche to the defense to investigate the government’s case,’ nor is it a discovery motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.”
“Because the filing of the Amended Complaint moots a prior entry of default, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 10) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss (Docs. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53) are GRANTED, and all of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the State Defendants’ and GTAA’s motions to dismiss (Docs. 100, 102) are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ claims against the State Defendants and GTAA are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“The NCAA’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 103) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ § 1983, right to bodily privacy, and prospective claims by non-eligible Plaintiffs against the NCAA are DISMISSED with prejudice. The NCAA’s motion to dismiss the remaining Title IX claims against it is DENIED with leave to refile after the parties conduct limited discovery.”
“the NCAA’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 157) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motions for a bill of particulars (Doc. 78) and for disclosure of confidential informants (Doc. 80) are DENIED.”
“Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Motion to Supplement Record (Doc. 40) is GRANTED.”
“Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 89) is GRANTED, and Avid’s Motion for Summary Judgment on First Amendment Challenge (Doc. 90) is DENIED.”
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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
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 Northern District of Georgia, not for Judge Johnson: 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 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 640 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 4,138 | 1.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,901 | 11.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 31.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,190 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,614 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,403 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,908 | 6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,463 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,954 | 6.2 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 Johnson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Johnson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Johnson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace