Donna Phillips Currault
How Judge Currault rules, drawn from 56 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Currault
Donna Phillips Currault has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana since June 2020. A graduate of Tulane University School of Law, she spent nearly three decades in private practice handling commercial and employment litigation before joining the court.
Judge Currault's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Currault, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Do not use email as a substitute for a properly filed motion.
“Email is not a substitute for filing a motion.”
Filing
Provide courtesy copies of contested motions only when the filing and attachments exceed 50 pages.
“Courtesy copies of contested motions and responses are required only when the filing and attachments exceed 50 pages.”
Motions
Include a proposed order with an ex parte or consent motion.
“Ex parte or consent motions must include a proposed Order and are referred to chambers as soon as possible.”
Conferences
Make the settlement demand at least ten days before the conference and respond no later than one week before it.
“At least ten days before the settlement conference, Plaintiff(s) must make a settlement demand, and Defendant(s) shall respond to that demand no later than one week before the conference.”
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 Currault decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dufrene v. BP Exploration & Production, Currault recommended dismissal with prejudice of a Deepwater Horizon medical-benefits claim as time-barred; the district judge adopted the recommendation and granted the dismissal motion.
“Magistrate Judge Currault recommended Plaintiff Todd M. Dufrene's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Rec. Doc. 11) filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company is GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
In Cuza v. Day, Currault recommended dismissing a mixed habeas petition without prejudice unless the petitioner dropped unexhausted claims. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“this case, which includes both exhausted and unexhausted claims [] is a 'mixed petition' . . . subject to dismissal without prejudice. ... the above-captioned matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court review, unless Petitioner amends his petition to exclude and/or dismiss the unexhausted claims.”
In Magee v. Amazon, Currault denied a request to conceal witness identities because fears of retaliation lacked a specific factual showing. She entered ordinary confidentiality limits.
“Plaintiff’s speculation and unsubstantiated conclusion in support of his request for a protective order governing witness identities for fear of potential retaliatory action by Defendant fall far short of the particular and specific demonstration of fact necessary to support entry of a protective order.”
In Foster v. Carty, Currault denied a motion to compel without prejudice because the record did not establish that the parties had held the required Rule 26(f) conference.
“At this early stage, and in the absence of any evidence that the parties held the required Rule 26(f) conference before issuance of discovery, the undersigned cannot determine whether a motion to compel is in order.”
In Tillman-Felton v. Blunt, Currault denied a motion to compel because the movant had not shown a formal document request or the required good-faith conference.
“Plaintiff failed to attach a Rule 37(a)(1) certification or any evidence that she issued Rule 34 Requests for Production of Documents seeking the documents identified on Defendant’s Exhibit List.”
Cautions
In Powell v. Walmart, Currault denied a post-removal request to add a nondiverse employee after the employee’s denial remained uncontradicted and the record showed no possibility of personal liability.
“Walmart has demonstrated that Plaintiff has no possibility of recovery against Thorton, and Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to the contrary despite having the obligation to do so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
Her own signed F&R; pro se TPCJC COVID-19 conditions-of-confinement 1983 (one of ~40 plaintiffs). Baudoin never paid the fee/filed a pauper application, was released, and never updated his address, so she RECOMMENDED dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute (Rule 41(b)). This recommendation did not resolve a party motion.
Her R&R (R. Doc. 13) is supported by DJ Vance's adoption order (2022-12-13). Prisoner 1983; Spears hearing + 1915(e)(2)/1915A sua sponte review; recommended dismissal as frivolous; ADOPTED, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This screening dismissal did not resolve a party motion.
“this case, which includes both exhausted and unexhausted claims [] is a 'mixed petition' . . . subject to dismissal without prejudice. ... the above-captioned matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court review, unless Petitioner amends his petition to exclude and/or dismiss the unexhausted claims.”
“Magistrate Judge Currault recommended Plaintiff Todd M. Dufrene's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Rec. Doc. 11) filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company is GRANTED.”
Her own signed SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND REASONS. Non-prisoner IFP 1915(e)(2) screening; granted IFP, withheld summons, ordered show cause why 1983 false-arrest/malicious-prosecution claims should not be stayed under Wallace v. Kato / dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey (charges apparently pending), and held DA/ADA claims barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity (Imbler)/Monell. This show-cause order did not resolve a party motion.
“Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED”
“GRANTED, and judgment be entered REVERSING the Commissioner”
Sua sponte 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) screening R&R (recommendation, not final). Recommends dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend of pro se FTC Act claim as legally frivolous plus Rule 41(b) failure to prosecute. Verbatim: 'Because any amendment would be futile, dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate.'
“proposed amended complaint (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“the undersigned GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF Nos. 1, 14) be DENIED and that the Complaint”
“GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons”
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Eastern District of Louisiana, not for Judge Currault: 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 | 10,411 | 79.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 3,511 | 86.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,814 | 14.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4,062 | 86.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 23.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 10,411 | 79.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,506 | 10.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,610 | 24.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,635 | 69.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 11,535 | 24.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 16,631 | 36 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,196 | 10.3 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 Currault with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Currault, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Currault's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace