Arlander Keys
How Judge Keys rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Keys no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Keys
Arlander Keys served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois from 1995 until 2014. He was the court's Presiding Magistrate Judge from 1998 to 2003 and had previously served as a Social Security administrative law judge.
How Judge Keys decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Barcenas v. Molon Motor & Coil, Keys denied the employer summary judgment because its shifting reasons for selecting the plaintiffs in a layoff, coupled with contrary performance evaluations, raised a triable question of pretext.
“the Court agrees that Moloris shifting explanations for the reasons it selected these specific Plaintiffs for termination casts doubt upon the veracity of each explanation.”
Procedural preferences
In Allen v. Astrue, Keys remanded a disability claim because the administrative law judge did not explain how the evidence supported a finding that the claimant could work at all exertional levels. He left other adequately explained findings in place.
“Because the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion that Mr. Allen could perform all exertional levels of work, remand on this issue is warranted.”
Cautions
In FTC v. American Tax Relief, Keys declined to reverse the release of frozen client-trust funds for defense expenses before a final fraud or restitution determination, but imposed oversight to ensure the fees and expenses paid were reasonable.
“The Court agrees, however, that some oversight is necessary to ensure that the funds at issue are used to pay only those fees and expenses that are reasonable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, in part, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further action consistent with this Opinion.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants the FTC’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and will enter a preliminary injunction order along the lines of that proposed by the FTC, with some revisions.”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have raised an inference that Molon's stated reason for terminating them — namely, a reduction in force — was a pretext for age discrimination. Accordingly, the Court finds that summary judgment in Moloris favor is inappropriate. Moloris motion for summary judgment [# 48] is Denied.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants Ms. Carnaghi's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 25] and denies the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 30]. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted. Defendant has failed to proffer evidence giving rise to a disputed issue of material fact on Plaintiff's contract and unjust enrichment claims. Therefore, summary judgment is warranted, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $200,841.53, plus the contractual amount of prejudgment interest.”
“GSF argues that summary judgment is warranted, because Ms. Anderson, its former employee, has failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that her termination violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (West 2008), or the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is Granted.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Similarly, Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Pacific Investment Management Company LLC's (PIMCO) motions are granted in part and denied in part. Defendant PIMCO Funds' motion is granted.”
“Accordingly, the Court denies the motions for summary judgment on this claim as well.”
“The case is before the Court on a number of motions, all of which are denied.”
“Square D's Motion to Compel Documents, to Deem the Attorney/Client Privilege Waived and for an In Camera Inspection of Documents Alleged to be Protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege [# 159] is granted in part and denied in part; the request for an in camera inspection is granted, the motion to compel discovery regarding communications between El and Siemens and El and its Insurer is granted (though such discovery is stayed pending claim construction); the motion to deem the attorney-client privilege waived is denied, as is Square D's request to compel deposition testimony concerning infringement opinions and changes made to El products on the basis of those opinions.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to bifurcate [# 157]; this makes particularly good sense in light of the Court's earlier decision to bifurcate El's counterclaims.”
“GSEC's motion to compel is granted.”
“The motion to compel is denied; by their own admission, the plaintiffs have the information they request in interrogatory number 1, and there is no reason to compel the defendants to provide it in some other format to them.”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to compel production of the materials sought in the subpoena.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 738 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 201.5 days (N = 2).
- Keys's docket combined full consent cases he carried to final judgment under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), including Social Security disability appeals (his pre-bench specialty as a Chief ALJ), employment-discrimination suits, and federal consumer-protection enforcement, with a heavy volume of pretrial discovery supervision and settlement conferences in cases referred to him by district judges.
- The two durations below are from contested consent merits cases and are a tiny, selection-biased sample, not a random caseload median.
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 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Keys no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.