Daniel P. McLaughlin
How Judge McLaughlin rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McLaughlin
Daniel P. McLaughlin was sworn in as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2024. He previously spent more than sixteen years as a staff attorney with the district's Federal Defender Program and practiced at Jenner & Block. He earned his law degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.
Judge McLaughlin's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McLaughlin, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Case Procedures ↗
- settlement conferences standing order dpm with signature and seal ↗
- Judge McLaughlin's Standing Order for Initial Status Report ↗
Key rules
Conferences
A joint status report is ordinarily unnecessary for a settlement-only referral unless the court orders one.
“A joint status report is not required in cases that are referred solely for a settlement conference, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the Court.”
Conferences
Counsel and clients must follow the standing settlement procedure before conference.
“Counsel and their clients must read and follow the procedures in that Standing Order prior to any settlement conference with the Court.”
Other
Email a clean and a redlined version when varying the model confidentiality order.
“Parties may deviate from the model order, but when submitting their proposed order to the Court’s e-mail address, they must include both a clean version of their order and a redline version showing any changes made to the model 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 8, 2026).
How Judge McLaughlin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ruth R. S.’s Social Security appeal, McLaughlin remanded because the administrative law judge relied on vocational testimony that was never given and had not adequately explained why normal examinations undercut opinions about fibromyalgia.
“Because the vocational testimony upon which the ALJ said he principally relied is in fact imaginary, the ALJ's decision is not properly supported and the Court cannot properly assess whether the government has satisfied its step five burden.”
In Ruth R. S.'s Social Security appeal, he found that normal examination findings did not adequately support the administrative law judge's rejection of medical opinions about fibromyalgia because the decision did not explain the asserted inconsistency.
“[T]he ALJ erred in this case by finding inconsistency in the medical opinions based on normal examinations without adequately explaining how the examinations were actually inconsistent with the providers' opinions.”
In Michael M.’s Social Security appeal, McLaughlin denied the claimant’s summary-judgment motion and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion after finding adequate support for the administrative law judge’s assessment of the claimant’s symptoms and other challenged evidence.
“[T]he Court finds that, per the ALJ's explanations and support outlined above, the ALJ reasonably determined that Plaintiff's allegations were not fully corroborated.”
In Rose, he declined to dismiss a deplaning injury claim on federal-preemption grounds because the pleaded duty arose after the aircraft reached the gate and Illinois negligence law supplied the standard of care.
“The duty of care that Plaintiff pleads aligns with Illinois state law and the Court concludes that it is not preempted by the FAA.”
Procedural preferences
His published discovery-motion procedures require counsel to meet in person when practical and warn that excessive discovery motions may lead to additional conference requirements, including a court reporter.
“requires counsel for parties to meet in person unless it is impracticable to do so ... Parties are forewarned that if the parties' inability to be reasonable and compromise results in the filing of excessive discovery motions, the Court will impose additional meet-and-confer requirements on the parties, that may include the presence of a court reporter at all meet-and-confer sessions.”
In Owners Insurance Co. v. Vette Auto Sales & Body, LLC, he declined to schedule a settlement conference on one party's motion because the motion did not show the other necessary participants' consent.
“Defendant's Motion does not present the other parties' interest in proceeding to a settlement conference with the Court, and the Court does not schedule settlement conferences without the consent of the other parties that would need to attend the conference.”
In Nona A., he granted a Rule 59(e) motion and vacated his own earlier remand after concluding that the earlier step-four ruling rested on a legal error. The June decision, not the vacated May ruling, controls the appeal outcome.
“agrees with Defendant that the Court’s ultimate holding as to the ALJ’s step four finding was based on a manifest error of law.”
Cautions
In Brooks v. Elgin Die Mold Co., McLaughlin dismissed the amended employment complaint with prejudice after finding the claims inadequately pleaded and noting that the plaintiff sought no further leave or identified a way to cure the defects.
“dismissal with prejudice is appropriate here because Plaintiff 'does not request leave to further amend or suggest how another amendment might cure the defects identified by the present motion[] to dismiss.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order [246] is granted to the extent that otherwise relevant litigation funding materials which include counsel's ‘mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories’ are protected work product and need not be produced. ... The Motion is otherwise denied, and Plaintiff is ordered to produce all relevant, non-privileged discovery related to litigation funding.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [14] is denied, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [17] is granted.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss [20] is granted and Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary remand [17] is granted, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [20] is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [13] is granted in part and denied in part, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [16] is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion to remand [13] is granted, and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [18] is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [14] is granted in part, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment [16] is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary remand [16] is granted, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment [17] is denied.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reverse or remand the Commissioner’s decision [19] is denied, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment [22] is granted.”
“Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision [13] is denied, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment [18] is granted.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [13] is denied, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment [17] is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [10] is granted in part and denied in part, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment [13] is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 154 days (N = 5).
His docket since his September 2024 swearing-in is a mix of a criminal duty-magistrate rotation (search warrants, sealed seizure matters, initial appearances: no civil-motion signal), a steady inflow of consent Social Security disability appeals assigned directly to him as new cases are filed, and ordinary civil cases referred to him or consent-reassigned under Local Rule 73.1 (an antitrust discovery dispute, an insurance coverage declaratory-judgment action, an employment-discrimination case, and a copyright case).
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, not for Judge McLaughlin: 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 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,300 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,558 | 5.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 305 | 12.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 42 | 49.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,700 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,093 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,841 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,703 | 15.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,046 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,134 | 7.4 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 McLaughlin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McLaughlin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McLaughlin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace