David L. Bunning
How Judge Bunning rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bunning
David L. Bunning is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Bunning received a commission on February 19, 2002.
Judge Bunning's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bunning's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 9, 2026).
- General Order 25-7 - Motions Under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) ↗
- General Order 23-08 - Plea Agreements and Supplements in Criminal Cases ↗
- General Order 22-15 - Standing Procedures for Social Security Actions ↗
- Joint General Order 21-1 - Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures ↗
- General Order 21-1 - Procedures for Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- General Order 14-11 - Possession and Use of Electronic Devices by Bar ↗
How Judge Bunning decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States ex rel. O’Laughlin v. Radiation Therapy Services, he granted summary judgment for the defendants after finding the relator had not supplied affirmative record evidence for the claim.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. # 203) is GRANTED. A Judgment in favor of the Defendants will be entered contemporaneously herewith.”
Procedural preferences
In ARC Resource Management v. Civil, LLC, he partly granted summary judgment on the corporate-separateness element of veil piercing while leaving other issues unresolved.
“(4) Civil's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaims (Doc. # 164) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, being granted as to the breach of contract claim against ARC on the existence of a contract and a breach thereof, and being granted as to the piercing the corporate veil claim on the lack of corporate separateness, and being denied as to all other claims and elements”
In MGPI of Indiana, LLC v. City of Williamstown, he denied dismissal of the remaining individual-capacity claims against the mayor.
“Defendant Mayor Christopher's Motion to Dismiss the remaining claims against him in his individual capacity (Counts I, VII, and VIII) (Doc. # 46) is DENIED”
In Jennings v. FUN.com, Bunning granted leave to amend after the new pleading separated claims, identified additional defendants, and added clarifying facts; he left futility questions for a later motion.
“The Court agrees with the logic expressed above and finds it appropriate to assess the futility of the Amended Complaint after it has been filed and a new renewed motion to dismiss, if deemed necessary, be filed.”
In an employment arbitration dispute, he allowed a nonsignatory client of the staffing company to enforce the employee’s agreement after finding the client was an intended beneficiary.
“Microsoft was an intended beneficiary, and it can enforce the arbitration agreement.”
In a wire-transfer dispute, he treated the plaintiff’s common-law claims as displaced where Article 4A addressed the alleged loss.
“Plaintiff’s common law claims are displaced by Article 4A because the Article addresses Plaintiff’s underlying injury.”
In this immigration detention case, he required an individualized custody determination after finding detention without a bond hearing violated due process.
“Yang’s detention without a bond hearing violates the due process rights afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment”
Cautions
In Watson v. Boone County School District, he dismissed the individual-supervisor employment claims while allowing claims against the district to proceed.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. # 203) is GRANTED. A Judgment in favor of the Defendants will be entered contemporaneously herewith.”
“IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Civil's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 104) is GRANTED”
“(4) Civil's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaims (Doc. # 164) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, being granted as to the breach of contract claim against ARC on the existence of a contract and a breach thereof, and being granted as to the piercing the corporate veil claim on the lack of corporate separateness, and being denied as to all other claims and elements”
“(5) Civil's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims (Doc. # 165) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“(3) Civil's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. # 163) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 45) is GRANTED as to the claims against Williamstown City Council members and Mayor Christopher in their official capacities. The claim of punitive damages against the City of Williamstown is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Defendant Mayor Christopher's Motion to Dismiss the remaining claims against him in his individual capacity (Counts I, VII, and VIII) (Doc. # 46) is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint and Amended Complaint (Doc. # 12) is GRANTED;”
“The United States' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's Motion (Doc. # 36) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motions to Suppress (Docs. # 17 and 18) are DENIED”
“Nettles's habeas corpus petition (Doc. # 1) is DENIED.”
“Hamilton's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 55) is granted.”
“Ba's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) is GRANTED;”
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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, not for Judge Bunning: 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 | 725 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 602 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 6 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 37.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 725 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 653 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 935 | 14 months |
| Sep 2022 | 810 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 811 | 11 months |
| Sep 2020 | 804 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,098 | 12 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 Bunning with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bunning, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bunning's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace