Jeffrey T. Gilbert

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 8 signed orders read

How Judge Gilbert decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On consent Social Security review he both remands and affirms on the merits (here 2 and 2). A remand turns on a concrete analytical defect — an RFC/vocational hypothetical that fails to capture a credited limitation (e.g. moderate concentration/persistence/pace), or an unsupported treatment of a treating-physician opinion. Tie the challenge to a specific, credited limitation the ALJ left out, not a general re-weighing.

“This matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”

Procedural preferences

On referred discovery he enforces procedural regularity and proportionality strictly: he denied a motion to compel a non-party's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because the proper vehicle was a subpoena, the request was untimely under the scheduling order, and it was not proportional at that stage. Use the correct procedural vehicle and move within the schedule.

“For all these reasons, Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. and Bojangles OPCO, LLC's Motion to Compel 30(b)(6) Deposition of Cheney ... is denied.”

On objections to discovery he overrules blanket/boilerplate objections: he granted a motion to compel 'in large part' after finding most of the responding party's blanket objections improper. Particularize objections or expect to be overruled.

“Defendants' Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [55] is granted in large part and denied in some part.”

Cautions

He resists using privilege/protective-order tools to block otherwise-relevant discovery without a strong showing: he denied a motion to modify a protective order to add a prosecution bar (good cause not shown), and denied a motion for a protective order asserting an 'accounting privilege' (no accountant-client privilege in a federal-question case). Privilege and protective-order arguments need a real legal basis, not a label.

“For the reasons discussed in this Order, Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order ... [199] is denied.”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Social security review
N = 4
Granted: 2Denied: 2 counts only
Motions to compel
N = 2
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for protective order
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to modify protective order
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Helferich Patent Licensing, L.L.C. v. The New York Times Company, et al.
1:11-cv-07395 · 2013-06-21
Motion to modify protective order (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Motion to Modify the Default Protective Order is denied.”

Trujillo v. American Bar Association, et al.
1:13-cv-08541 · 2014-10-24
Motions to compel (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [55] is granted in large part and denied in some part.”

Schuck v. Berryhill (Acting Commissioner of Social Security)
1:16-cv-05936 · 2017-06-28
Social security review (plaintiff) Granted

“Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted... The decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the case is remanded...”

Tyronda B. v. Saul (Commissioner of Social Security)
1:19-cv-01244 · 2020-08-04
Social security review (plaintiff) Granted

“This matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”

In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation (Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. movant)
1:16-cv-08637 · 2022-02-16
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“For all these reasons, Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. and Bojangles OPCO, LLC's Motion to Compel 30(b)(6) Deposition of Cheney ... is denied.”

Reva T. v. Kijakazi (Acting Commissioner of Social Security)
1:21-cv-05475 · 2023-03-30
Social security review (plaintiff) Denied

“Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is denied and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is granted.”

Power Buying Dealers USA, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc., et al.
1:21-cv-03154 · 2024-02-09
Motion for protective order (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons discussed in this Order, Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order ... [199] is denied.”

Vendetta G. v. O'Malley (Commissioner of Social Security)
1:21-cv-01097 · 2024-02-21
Social security review (plaintiff) Denied

“Claimant's Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ... is denied, and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment ... is granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Gilbert is an active magistrate judge (sworn 2010). His civil reasoning work — Social Security consent dispositions and referred civil discovery (motions to compel, protective orders) — is reflected in the GovInfo reasoning layer above; a clean assigned-case duration list was not enumerable under his name this pass.