Regina S. Edwards
How Judge Edwards rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Edwards
Regina S. Edwards became a United States magistrate judge in the Western District of Kentucky in July 2018 and was reappointed in 2026. Before joining the bench in Louisville, she served as First Assistant United States Attorney for the district and earned her law degree from Vanderbilt University.
Judge Edwards's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Edwards'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 Edwards decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Reyes, Edwards recommended denying a Franks hearing because the defendant's belief that a warrant affidavit contained a false statement did not constitute an offer of proof.
“He stands only on his belief that the statement is false. But such a ‘belief’ does not constitute an offer of proof.”
Procedural preferences
In Fulkerson v. Kirkpatrick, Edwards rejected an honest-mistake explanation for late disclosure of documents after the defendants had told the plaintiff they did not possess responsive documents. She allowed other late disclosures that caused less surprise and could be addressed through a deposition.
“Defendants told Plaintiff they did not have responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. Yet at some unknown point afterward, Defendants obtained these documents ... examination of Defendants' behavior as to Items (1)-(7) does not reveal an honest mistake.”
In Graham Packaging Co. v. Indorama Ventures, Edwards found that nonparty Auriga raised substantive subpoena objections too late after saying for months that it had none. She also considered Auriga's production of more than 17,000 documents when deciding what further production to require.
“The Court cannot say Auriga acted in good faith by repeatedly representing it did not have substantive objections to Graham's subpoena only to reverse course and substantively challenge the subpoena, at the eleventh hour. ... the Court still considers that Auriga, a nonparty, spent time and effort producing over 17,000 documents to Graham.”
In Levy v. Greif Inc., Edwards recommended civil contempt against MTL Trucking after giving it additional deadlines and sending notice by certified mail to resolve uncertainty about whether it had received the order compelling a response.
“The Court could not find clear and convincing evidence that MTL Trucking had knowledge of the Order compelling its response because it could not sufficiently confirm that the copies of the orders were received by MTL Trucking. ... the Court found it necessary to send a copy of the Order via certified mail ... before taking the extreme measure of imposing sanctions.”
In one marketing-discovery dispute, she ordered a company to search its owner-promoters’ communications after finding their close role in the brand made relevant messages likely and the added search was not unduly burdensome.
“Paul and KSI are inseparable from Prime’s marketing and branding and, therefore, are likely to possess information critical to Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit.”
Cautions
In Bond v. Ford Motor Co., Edwards recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute after Bond missed deadlines to respond following his counsel's withdrawal and did not attend a show-cause hearing. The district judge adopted her recommendation.
“As a result, Judge Edwards issued a Report and Recommendation on May 12, 2025, recommending that this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).”
In United States v. Reyes, Edwards recommended denying a suppression motion and request for a hearing because the defendant had not shown that officers failed to knock and announce while executing an arrest warrant. She declined to decide whether the exclusionary rule would apply to such a violation, noting conflicting authority.
“Regardless, the Court need not decide this issue of first impression because I. Reyes has not alleged sufficient proof that a knock-and-announce violation occurred.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because Claimant fails to submit a reviewable claim pursuant to §405(g), and because the ALJ's decision is otherwise supported by substantial evidence and complies with applicable law, the Court RECOMMENDS the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.”
“ALJ Grayson's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and comports with the applicable regulations; accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.”
“the court OVERRULES Claimant's Objection, DN 21, and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Edwards' well-reasoned Report, DN 20, as its opinion and incorporates it here by reference. Claimant's ‘Motion’ for a summary judgment, DN 11, is DENIED.”
“ALJ McDaniel's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and comports with the applicable regulations; accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant Ishia Reyes' Motion to Suppress Evidence and Request for Franks Hearing (DN 83) be DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Disclosures (DN 42) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (1) Items (8)-(12) may be produced and used as supplemental disclosures. (2) Items (1)-(7) are not permitted as supplemental disclosures.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Untimely Disclosed Evidence (DN 50) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (1) Defendants' Items (1)-(7) are excluded from use in this litigation, including at trial.”
“The Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Regina S. Edwards (D.N. 30) is ADOPTED in full and INCORPORATED by reference herein. (2) This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Lang's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (DN 1) be DENIED. The Court further recommends that a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED as to Lang's petition.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel (DN 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as discussed above. Plaintiff shall produce copies of relevant portions of her notebooks to Defendant within fourteen (14) days entry of this Order.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (DN 28) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Graham's Motion to Compel (DN 1) is GRANTED to the extent identified above. Auriga will have thirty (30) days from date of entry of this Order to provide Graham with documents responsive to Request Nos. 4, 6-9, 13, 15, 19, 20, 24, 30, and 31 and to identify Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses that can testify as to the listed deposition topics.”
“The undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Court issue an Order granting the Greif Defendants' Motion for Contempt (DN 69), including ... finding Defendant MTL Trucking, Inc. in civil contempt of Court ... ordering MTL Trucking, Inc. to produce their file within ten days ... sanctioning Defendant MTL Trucking, Inc. to pay all costs and attorney fees incurred by all other parties.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 0 |
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 Edwards: 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 Edwards with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Edwards, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Edwards's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace