Debora K. Grasham
How Judge Grasham rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Grasham
Debora K. Grasham became a United States magistrate judge in the District of Idaho in April 2022. She previously practiced commercial litigation and media law in Boise and earned her law degree from Santa Clara University School of Law.
Judge Grasham's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Grasham, 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
A lawyer less than seven years out of law school or pro bono counsel can request oral argument on a contested substantive motion.
“A request for oral argument on a contested substantive motion may be filed, and the Court will schedule oral argument, if the request indicates a lawyer of less than seven years out of law school, or pro bono counsel, will conduct the oral argument (or at least a majority).”
Motions
The court prefers one dispositive motion per side; seek permission for a longer brief if necessary.
“The Court prefers only one dispositive motion per side.”
Discovery
After meeting and conferring, contact chambers and notify the assigned law clerk of a discovery dispute before filing a motion.
“the parties MUST contact Chambers and inform the law clerk assigned to the case of the existence of the dispute prior to filing a motion.”
Conferences
File a litigation plan and discovery plan one week before the scheduling conference.
“Each party should complete a litigation plan and a discovery plan and file it with the Court one week prior to the scheduling conference.”
Sealing
A sealing request in a criminal matter must include a motion, supporting briefing, and a proposed order.
“A request to seal must be made by motion and accompanied by supporting briefing and a proposed 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).
How Judge Grasham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Resolves summary judgment claim-by-claim, granting it on a hostile-work-environment claim while denying it on a retaliation claim that presents triable issues.
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: a. The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim. b. The Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim.”
Cautions
Grants a motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the barred claims without prejudice, and denies leave to amend where amendment would not cure the defect.
“NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Third Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: ... 2) The Motion is GRANTED as to the remaining rights-of-way alleged in Claims One, Two, Three, and Four, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3) Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: a. The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim. b. The Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim.”
“NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Third Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: ... 2) The Motion is GRANTED as to the remaining rights-of-way alleged in Claims One, Two, Three, and Four, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3) Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 69) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Claims One, Six, and Seven. 2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Claim Three.”
“Plaintiffs’ pending motion (Dkt. 96) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons stated herein, the Commissioner’s decision finding Plaintiff not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED and the Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED.”
“THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED in part and Plaintiff’s opening brief is due April 10, 2026.”
“Respondents’ Motion for Summary Dismissal (Dkt. 16) is DENIED without”
“disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED and the Complaint”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed consent docket includes twelve Social Security disability appeals and a smaller group of prisoner, employment, public-lands, and habeas matters. In consent cases under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Grasham enters final judgment rather than issuing a recommendation. Older matters reassigned after her April 2022 appointment are included only when she issued the decision.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 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 District of Idaho, not for Judge Grasham: 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 | 405 | 10.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 53 | 3.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 322 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 27 | 23.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 405 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 389 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 363 | 11.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 381 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 352 | 14.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 348 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 365 | 10.4 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 Grasham with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Grasham, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Grasham's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace