Keri L. Holleb Hotaling
How Judge Hotaling rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hotaling
Keri L. Holleb Hotaling took office as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois in August 2023. She graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law and practiced complex commercial litigation at Jenner & Block. Immediately before joining the bench, she was Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation in the Illinois Attorney General's Office.
Judge Hotaling's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hotaling, 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 ↗
- Standing Order on Settlement Conferences ↗
- Preparing a final pretrial order for consent cases before Magistrate Judge Holleb Hotaling ↗
Key rules
Sealing
Parties may agree among themselves to keep unfiled discovery confidential without a court order.
“A. Confidentiality Agreement Amongst the Parties (No Court Order Necessary): The parties may properly agree among themselves to limit disclosure of unfiled discovery information to certain specified persons during the litigation and not to voluntarily disseminate such information to other persons. Court approval of such an agreement or a court order is not necessary.”
Sealing
For a court confidentiality order, use the local model and redline any additions or deletions.
“B. Confidentiality/Protective Orders: If the parties require a confidentiality order be entered by the Court, they are directed to use the model confidentiality order approved by the full Court and set forth in the Local Rules: Form LR 26.2 Model Confidentiality Order. While the parties may deviate from the model order, any additions and deletions are to be red-lined.”
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 Hotaling decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When the administrative record lacked supporting medical opinion evidence, she treated the resulting gap between raw findings and a functional-capacity assessment as a reason to remand.
“ALJs, after all, ‘must rely on expert opinions instead of determining the significance of particular medical findings themselves.’”
At summary judgment, she allowed a remediation claim to proceed where the evidence supported a causal link and experts disputed whether the contractor had restored acceptable conditions.
“the Court is persuaded that enough of a causal link has been demonstrated between the February 1, 2019 water intrusion events and the mold remaining in the property after Belfor’s remediation efforts”
Procedural preferences
She requires diligence before reopening a long-closed discovery period and does not treat a later change in strategy as good cause.
“Defendants’ motion reflects strategic reconsideration, not diligence, and the Seventh Circuit has made clear that lack of diligence is fatal under Rule 16.”
For retained experts, she expects a disclosure detailed enough to permit a deposition and an informed decision about rebuttal evidence.
“That’s it, and nothing more. It is simply nowhere near enough.”
Cautions
She excluded evidence disclosed after the opposing expert could use it, concluding that the resulting prejudice could not be repaired on the eve of trial.
“Ultimately, Belfor held off providing Ford’s declaration to the Wexlers until after it was too late for the Wexlers to take any discovery on it or even allow Rush to consider it in forming his own opinion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 12] is DENIED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 14] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 19) is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 22) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 12] is DENIED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 20] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 19) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 12] is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 14] is DENIED; the Court hereby remands this matter for further proceedings.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 15) is DENIED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 20) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 13) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 13] is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 14] is DENIED; the Court hereby remands this matter for further proceedings.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, Defendant Chubb National Insurance Co.’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 252] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“The Wexlers’ motion [Dkt. 257] to exclude is granted.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, the Wexlers’ motion for partial summary judgment [Dkt. 268] is granted only as to Chubb’s First Affirmative Defense.”
“Defendant Belfor USA Group Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 259] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The eleven analyzed matters consist of eight consent Social Security appeals, one insurance-contract action, one shareholder and fiduciary-duty dispute, and one civil-rights action after appellate remand. This fixed evidence-rich sample describes the decisions reviewed, not the judge's overall caseload.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
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 Illinois, not for Judge Hotaling: 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 Hotaling with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hotaling, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hotaling's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace