Susan E. Cox
How Judge Cox decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Social Security review she will remand where the ALJ failed to properly weigh a treating physician's opinion under the regulatory factors. A claimant appealing an ALJ denial before her should foreground the treating-source analysis and the 20 C.F.R. 404.1527 factors.
“We remand to re-examine the treating physician's opinion using the factors set forth in 20 U.S.C. 404.1527.”
Procedural preferences
On discovery sanctions she tailors the remedy: she will compel production and shift the costs of the motions caused by a party's non-compliance, but declines overreaching relief (here she refused a per diem fine and requests tied to a 30(b)(6) witness and drawings). Ask for proportionate, conduct-matched sanctions rather than punitive add-ons.
“For the reasons stated, we grant the motion in that defendants must product all documents by July 11, 2012 and must bear the costs of the three motions. The motion is denied, however, as to plaintiff's requests relating to the 30(b)(6) witness, the drawings, and the per diem fine.”
Cautions
She will recommend Rule 11 monetary sanctions for litigant misconduct, including against a pro se party, where the conduct is egregious. Frivolous or abusive filings before her carry real downside.
“the Court recommends a modest monetary sanction of $250.00 be imposed due to Mr. Day's egregious conduct in this case.”
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: 3 | counts only |
| Motions to compel N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for sanctions N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to amend 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.
“Plaintiff's Brief in Support of his Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [dkt. 15], which the Court construes as a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt. 19] is DENIED. The Administrative Law Judge's decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 15] and deny the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 22]. The Administrative Law Judge's decision is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted [dkt. 12]. We remand to re-examine the treating physician's opinion using the factors set forth in 20 U.S.C. 404.1527. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied [dkt. 19].”
“For the reasons more fully discussed below, the Motion to Compel [173] filed by Defendants SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Company (collectively, "Defendants") is granted in part, and denied in part.”
“Defendants' motion to compel is granted.”
“For the reasons provided, plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, construed as a motion [29], is denied.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that the district judge grant the motion and sanction Mr. Day in the amount of $250.00 payable to the defendants.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b) [dkt. 94].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 199 days (N = 5).
Cox's enumerable docket docket under her name mixes same-day duty-magistrate miscellaneous matters (USPS parcel search/forfeiture, e.g. 1:22-mc-00770) with a handful of terminated consent civil cases from 2022-2023 (two SSA appeals before Commissioner O'Malley — Peterson 1:22-cv-07216, Aksoy 1:22-cv-05857; a freight/commercial case — Jones v. Celeritas 1:23-cv-00513; a products case — Schultz v. Ford 1:22-cv-06586; and a premises case — Emmons v. Menard 1:22-cv-04433). Her broader civil reasoning work — SSA dispositions, referred discovery and pretrial motions, sanctions, and R&Rs across 2007-2023 — is reflected in the GovInfo reasoning layer.