Olga Jurco
Judge Jurco no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Jurco decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She placed the burden of proving attorney-client privilege on the party withholding discovery and required concrete support rather than reliance on the existence of an attorney-client relationship.
“The burden of establishing these elements falls squarely upon the party asserting the privilege.”
In disability review, she treated the agency's severity inquiry as a threshold screen and credited a treating physician's work-capacity assessment when it was consistent with the longitudinal medical record.
“Dr. Bice, in his 1983 report, merely translated his clinical diagnosis already in this record into practical work-capability terms.”
Procedural preferences
She construed privilege narrowly in discovery and distinguished confidential legal advice from technical material prepared for submission to third parties.
“This judicial district, however, does urge that the privilege be narrowly construed.”
She protected a non-testifying expert from deposition where the testifying expert had not relied on that expert's opinions or report.
“Magistrate Jurco quashed the deposition subpoena and granted a protective order”
Cautions
In habeas review, she treated counsel's failure to explore protective alternatives or make an in-camera proffer as fatal to a claimed cause for procedural default.
“Perhaps most importantly, Adam did not submit the witnesses’ written statements, or any other information about them or what they would testify to in the trial, to the judge in camera.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is ordered that defendant produce all documents to plaintiff, except the following:”
“The court orders plaintiff to produce all non-privileged tapes.”
“For all of the above and foregoing reasons, I find probable cause exists to believe the accused committed the charged offenses and find further that the nature and circumstances of their commission are not within the exception from extradition as an offense political in character.”
“The Motion to Admit Exhibits 25 through 42 is denied:”
“The government’s motion is denied for the reason that the Majority Report was refused admission into evidence.”
“The defendant’s motion for leave to file Exhibit 43 into evidence, being the 1979 United Nations Security Council meetings of January 19, March 13, 19 and 22, and June 29 is denied.”
“The defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of government witness Louis Fields is denied.”
“The accused sought discovery as to the status of those who were killed and injured; it was denied.”
“It is recommended the Court grant the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversing the Secretary’s decision and deny the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court find and order that the defendants are in continuing violation of its Orders of March 17 and April 9, 1982;”
“Magistrate Jurco also recommended that plaintiffs should not be granted attorneys’ fees in connection with this motion”
“Blazer objects to Magistrate Jurco’s recommendation that plaintiffs be granted summary judgment with respect to each of these claims.”
“Magistrate Jurco recommended that Blazer’s motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to claims one through three set forth above.”
“U. S. Magistrate Olga Jurco ruled on February 21, 1974, that respondent’s motion for summary judgment was of merit and recommended that petitioner’s petition for review be dismissed.”
“Although noting the CHA’s inefficient bureaucratic operation and inability to reevaluate its criteria for suitable remedial housing was responsible, in large part, for the long delay, the Master did not recommend appointment of a receiver.”
“Accordingly, Veal’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Magistrate Jurco’s order of October 23, 1980 directing GTE to comply with certain discovery requests respecting damages.”
“Magistrate Jurco, in a thorough memorandum opinion, denied the defendants’ motions to quash, and this court affirmed her ruling.”
“On February 28, 1985, Magistrate Jurco denied defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena”
“Magistrate Jurco quashed the deposition subpoena and granted a protective order”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No assigned electronic docket was located for Jurco's 1971-1985 service, so no docket-based caseload mix, case-duration, motion-outcome, or timing claim is available.
A historical record
Judge Jurco no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.