Sunil R. Harjani
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 Social Security appeals he applies ordinary substantial-evidence review and is willing to reverse and remand under sentence four where the ALJ's analysis is deficient, but affirms (and grants the Commissioner summary judgment) where the decision is supported — outcomes turn on the adequacy of the ALJ's reasoning, not a default lean either way (this small slice: one remand, two affirmances).
“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
On spoliation/e-discovery sanctions he anchors the analysis to the duty-to-preserve trigger: alteration or deletion of ESI that occurred BEFORE the duty to preserve arose is not sanctionable, and a movant must identify relevant ESI actually lost after the duty attached. Absent that, he recommends denying dispositive sanctions (dismissal, adverse inference).
“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.”
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 = 3 |
Granted: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to quash 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.
“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. The dispositive portion (requested dismissal of part of CaramelCrisp's breach-of-contract claim and an adverse-inference instruction) is a RECOMMENDATION to the district judge that the motion be denied; the non-dispositive portions (fees/costs, and the motion to strike) were denied by order. Excluded from motion stats (recommendation; district-judge adoption not verified here). Verbatim recommendation: '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 ...'; 'Defendant's motion to strike [180] is denied.' Kept for the ESI/spoliation reasoning pattern.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
As a newly commissioned district judge (April 2024), his enumerable docket docket is his 2024-onward assignments, which as of mid-2026 are overwhelmingly recently filed and still pending. The 2026 sample shows a typical Eastern-Division (Chicago) civil mix: intellectual-property 'Schedule A' Partnerships-and-Unincorporated-Associations copyright enforcement actions (820), Social Security appeals, FDCPA/consumer-finance (Oliphant Financial, Migdal Law Group), Taft-Hartley/ERISA union benefit-fund collections (Suburban Teamsters, Roofers' Unions Welfare Trust — the latter pleaded as RICO 470), ERISA (791, Aon), civil rights (440), alien-detainee habeas (463), federal tax (870), plus a criminal calendar. No terminated dockets in the sample, so no case durations are reported.