Sunil R. Harjani
How Judge Harjani rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Harjani
Sunil Ramesh Harjani is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Harjani received a commission on March 20, 2024.
Judge Harjani's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Harjani, 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 ↗
- Judge Harjani's Final Pretrial Order ↗
- Final Pretrial Order Procedures in Criminal Cases ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Deliver summary judgment briefing and supporting materials to chambers within 24 hours of filing.
“A courtesy copy of the memorandum of law, depositions and other materials relied upon in support of the motion (as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(1)-(2)) or in opposition to the motion (as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)-(3)) must be delivered to chambers within 24 hours of when it is filed.”
Other
In patent cases, file the joint report at least seven days before the initial status hearing.
“At least 7 days prior to the initial status hearing in a patent case, the parties must file a joint report, in the format and including the information required by LPR Appendix A.”
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 Harjani decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Joseph Z. v. Saul, Harjani reversed and remanded a Social Security disability decision under sentence four of § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.
“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the ALJ's decision is reversed and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Procedural preferences
In CaramelCrisp LLC v. Putnam, Harjani recommended denying dismissal and an adverse inference as spoliation sanctions. He found that most of the identified alterations preceded the duty to preserve and that the movant had not identified relevant evidence lost afterward.
“any alteration to Putnam's laptop and deletion of files (other than the seven deleted files) occurred prior to CaramelCrisp's duty to preserve, and the precise identities of the seven deleted files are available. ... she has not identified any relevant ESI lost after the duty to preserve arose.”
In Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance, Harjani granted a motion to compel production of Allstate’s internal do-not-call list with limits on use and contact.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel [68] Allstate's internal DNC list is granted with the limitations set forth above.”
In Williams v. Tessmann, Harjani denied reconsideration of an earlier refusal to allow a late amendment naming estate administrators. He found that counsel’s mistake did not establish Rule 16 good cause for the amendment after the scheduling deadline.
“Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake is not grounds for good cause.”
Cautions
In one Federal Tort Claims Act case, the court dismissed a complaint over agency recordkeeping because it identified no underlying private tort analogue under state law.
“Without an underlying state tort, Hadjiev’s FTCA claim fails.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the ALJ's decision is reversed and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Kameka's request for reversal and remand [16, 21] is denied, the Acting Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [24, 25] is granted, and the ALJ's decision is affirmed.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court affirms the ALJ's decision.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [126] is denied.”
“As a result, Plaintiff's motion to quash [165] is denied.”
Combined Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Recommendation on the defendant's spoliation-sanctions motion. Harjani recommended that the district judge deny the dispositive requests to dismiss part of CaramelCrisp's breach-of-contract claim and give an adverse-inference instruction; he denied the non-dispositive requests for fees and costs and denied the motion to strike by order. The available record does not show the district judge's later action on the recommendation. Harjani wrote: 'For the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends that Defendant's motion for sanctions [169] be denied as to her request for dismissal of CaramelCrisp's breach of contract claim... and her request for an adverse inference...' and 'Defendant's motion to strike [180] is denied.'
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion to qualify defendants' responses to Rule 36 requests to admit [104] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the above reasons, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [30].”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel [68] Allstate's internal DNC list is granted with the limitations set forth above.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [72] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Compel [92] is granted. Eternity Mart shall produce its 2019 tax returns and Eternity Sales Corp, Inc.'s tax returns from 2016 to 2019 with appropriate redactions and in accordance with the parties' protective order [20] by October 26, 2021.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's motion for sanctions [48] and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions [54] are both denied. The portion of Defendant's motion seeking to re-depose Plaintiff is denied as moot.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's motion for sanctions [48] and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions [54] are both denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Judge Harjani's district-court assignments began in 2024 and were still largely pending when reviewed.
- The sampled Chicago docket includes intellectual-property enforcement, Social Security appeals, consumer-finance disputes, union benefit-fund collections, civil-rights cases, immigration-detention habeas petitions, federal tax matters, and a criminal calendar.
- No completed cases appeared in the sample, so no case-duration figure is reported.
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 | 39 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 39 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 24 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 29 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 38 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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.
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 Harjani: 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 Harjani with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Harjani, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Harjani's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace