Tim A. Baker

In Ledbetter v. Colvin, he recommended affirmance despite an ALJ articulation error after finding it harmless on the treating physician's own records.

“the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or remand be denied [Filing No. 19], and the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.”

A generalized claim that arbitration is unfair did not defeat a written vehicle-purchase arbitration agreement where the opponent offered no concrete proof of bias or unfairness.

“Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that arbitration would not be fair because the arbitration agreement limits her rights.”

In Maxwell v. Michael, he found the plaintiff's fabricated citations to be deliberate deception and imposed a $1,000 Rule 11 sanction.

“Accordingly, the Court sanctions Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000 for his actions.”

A discovery-sanctions request based on alleged video alteration or spoliation requires evidence of improper conduct, prejudice, and the relevant intent; technical-sounding speculation is insufficient.

“Thus, Clay's claim that Defendants intentionally altered videos produced in initial disclosures is unsupported by evidence.”

In Eaton, a confidential designation did not justify sealing entire deposition excerpts. The court required narrow proposed redactions and an explanation of why they would not adequately protect the sensitive material.

“OTC has not provided redacted versions of any of the transcript excerpts at issue or explained why redaction would not sufficiently address its concerns.”

The Eaton discovery conference required meaningful discussions between counsel before renewed requests for court intervention.

“The recurring discovery disputes in this litigation continue to demonstrate that the parties need to have meaningful, productive conversations and strive to resolve their issues, rather than running to the Court every time they encounter a disagreement.”

In the church’s discrimination case, Baker limited nonparty discovery to property-related material actually submitted to the decisionmakers during the relevant period. The nonparty’s internal communications did not establish the governmental decisionmakers’ intent.

“Specifically, Plaintiffs are entitled to discover any documents that Landmarks submitted to Defendants from 2017 through October 2025 in relation to the subject property.”

In Wesley, the claimant failed to invoke the consultative-report review regulations and identified neither prejudice nor specific supervision restrictions. Baker recommended denial where the ALJ also relied on inconsistent evidence, rather than vagueness alone.

“Finally, the ALJ did not discount Dr. Oetting's opinion on vagueness alone.”