David J. Hale
How Judge Hale rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hale
David Jason Hale is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Hale received a commission on December 10, 2014.
Judge Hale's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hale'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).
How Judge Hale decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a dispute over a retirement account, competing beneficiary claims satisfied the multiple-claim requirement for statutory interpleader. The court permitted the disinterested account holder to deposit the funds and leave the case while the claimants litigated entitlement.
“Merrill is subject to competing beneficiary claims by Morgan and Adams over the IRRA (see generally D.N. 14), and thus the requirement is satisfied.”
At the pleading stage of a mental-health parity claim, he found it sufficient to identify a treatment limitation, analogous medical or surgical care, and an as-applied difference; the claim proceeded past dismissal.
“T.E. has sufficiently identified (1) a treatment limitation, (2) an analogous medical/surgical treatment, and (3) an as-applied disparity.”
Procedural preferences
On federal-question removal, he gave effect to an express state-law-only pleading and its explanation of constitutional references, remanding the case and awarding removal expenses.
“The complaint expressly states that it ‘asserts state common law causes of action only,’ then reiterates: ‘[T]his Complaint does not assert any federal cause of action.’”
Cautions
In an anti-smuggling prosecution involving emailed technical data, he read the statute’s physical-object wording in context and dismissed the count because it did not reach purely digital transmission.
“statutory context, does not include digital information sent via email.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to the First Amendment (D.N. 218) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to the Fifth Amendment (D.N. 219) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (D.N. 9) is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to Jefferson Circuit Court.”
“The motion to dismiss (D.N. 6) and motion for leave to amend (D.N. 19) are DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant H.D. Supply's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Outstanding Claims (D.N. 46) is DENIED.”
“YTA's motion for partial summary judgment (D.N. 40) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED as to PSC's claim of tortious interference with contractual relations (Count III). The motion is DENIED as to PSC's claims of breach of contract and aiding and abetting a breach of a fiduciary duty (Counts I and IV) and PSC's claim for a declaration of rights under the Agreement (Count II). YTA's motion is also denied as to its counterclaim for breach of contract.”
“PSC's motion for summary judgment (D.N. 41) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Joy Williams's motion for summary judgment (D.N. 12) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Louisville Recovery Service, LLC's motion for summary judgment (D.N. 13) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Joshua White's motions to suppress (D.N. 171; D.N. 178) are DENIED.”
“the motion to dismiss the smuggling count as legally insufficient (D.N. 86) is GRANTED. Count 9 of the Second Superseding Indictment is hereby DISMISSED as to all Defendants in this matter.”
“the Motion to Remand (DN 10) is DENIED.”
“the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (DN 8) is GRANTED, and Defendant Clack is DISMISSED from the case.”
“the motion to dismiss (DN 6) and amended motion to dismiss (DN 8) by Defendants Judges Acree, Nickell, Dixon, Taylor, Kramer, Lambert, and Wine pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) are GRANTED.”
“Defendant Lumber Liquidators' motion to dismiss (D.N. 4) is DENIED.”
“Anthem’s partial motion to dismiss (D.N. 33) is DENIED.”
“Titan Electric of Kentucky, LLC's motion for summary judgment (D.N. 89) is GRANTED.”
“Campus Crest Construction, Inc.; Campus Crest at Louisville, LLC; and Campus Crest Development, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (D.N. 101) is GRANTED.”
“JCR Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (D.N. 108) is DENIED.”
“Bigford Enterprises, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (D.N. 128) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sixteen terminated civil dockets were inspected across 2016 and 2023. They include medical-malpractice, benefits, employment, contract, civil-rights, and consumer matters. The two recorded case durations and listed suit examples come from the original three-case sample; this targeted selection does not describe the full caseload.
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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 13 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 10 |
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 Western District of Kentucky, not for Judge Hale: 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 | 931 | 7.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 121 | 3.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 790 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 17 | 27.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 931 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 966 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 835 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,130 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,065 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,184 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,111 | 8.6 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 Hale with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hale, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hale's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace