Janis van Meerveld
How Judge Meerveld rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Meerveld
Janis van Meerveld has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana since September 2016. She practiced employment and maritime litigation at Adams and Reese before joining the court and now serves as its Chief Magistrate Judge.
Judge Meerveld's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Meerveld, 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.
- Judge's procedures and schedules ↗
- GuidelinesforSettlementConferences ↗
- Supplemental Rule 37 Conference ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Make a meaningful and good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes before moving to compel.
“The Rule thus requires that the parties make a meaningful and good faith effort to resolve their discovery disputes prior to filing a motion to compel.”
Discovery
The judge encourages counsel to meet in person or by telephone for discovery disputes.
“The Court encourages parties to meet in person or by telephone , as opposed to emailing each other.”
Conferences
Follow the judge’s stated conference procedure.
“It is the duty of counsel for Plaintiff(s) to notify Chambers if the case is continued, settled, or otherwise disposed of prior to the date of the scheduled settlement conference so that the matter may be removed from the Court's docket.”
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 Meerveld decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Olive v. Berryhill, Van Meerveld recommended granting an unopposed EAJA fee motion for $4,077.50. Her calculation used a cost-of-living-adjusted $175 hourly rate for 23.3 hours.
“it is RECOMMENDED that the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees be GRANTED and that plaintiff be awarded $4077.50 in reasonable attorney's fees.”
In Jefferson v. Barriere Construction Co., Van Meerveld excluded a late liability expert after finding no good cause for the delay. She allowed a second late expert to testify subject to a $7,500 sanction on counsel.
“Because plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for her delay as to the Randle report, IT IS ORDERED that the Supplemental and Amending Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Randle (Rec. Doc. 104) is GRANTED. Randle will not be allowed to present expert testimony at trial.”
In one trade-secret discovery dispute, she denied further interrogatory detail after finding the existing responses sufficient and the requested additional connections disproportionate; she pointed to a corporate deposition for follow-up questions.
“Requiring Incat to further make the connections Birdon believes will show Incat cannot meet its burden would be disproportionate with the needs of the case.”
In a late amendment request, she weighed the explanation for delay, importance of the new claims, and prejudice before denying leave to add unrelated allegations.
“Considering Sullivan’s unpersuasive explanation for his delay, the minimal importance of joining his new claims to this lawsuit, and the minimal prejudice Sullivan will suffer if leave to amend is denied, the Court finds Sullivan has not established good cause for his out of time amendment.”
In a demurrage dispute, she treated a request for more detail as a discovery issue where the complaint already identified the charges and legal theory.
“As Norfolk rightly points out, a Rule 12(e) motion is not a substitute for discovery.”
Cautions
In Todd, van Meerveld recommended denying dismissal of the individual-capacity claim against EMT Jacob and dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“Magistrate Judge van Meerveld recommended that the Court deny defendants' motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's claim against EMT Jacob in his individual capacity, and grant the remainder of defendants' motion, dismissing the remaining claims against defendants with prejudice. ... The Court adopts Magistrate Judge van Meerveld's R&R as its opinion.”
In a consent Title VII case, workplace demographics and an unexplained termination do not alone plead race discrimination, and retaliation requires protected activity before the adverse action.
“Because there is no plausible protected activity prior to his termination, Mr. Lee has failed to state a claim for retaliation under Title VII.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is RECOMMENDED that the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees be GRANTED and that plaintiff be awarded $4077.50 in reasonable attorney's fees.”
“Magistrate Judge van Meerveld recommended that the Court deny defendants' motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's claim against EMT Jacob in his individual capacity, and grant the remainder of defendants' motion, dismissing the remaining claims against defendants with prejudice. ... The Court adopts Magistrate Judge van Meerveld's R&R as its opinion.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be GRANTED and that the Court award plaintiff its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $17,107.”
“Because plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for her delay as to the Randle report, IT IS ORDERED that the Supplemental and Amending Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Randle (Rec. Doc. 104) is GRANTED. Randle will not be allowed to present expert testimony at trial.”
“Because the importance of the Dietze testimony outweighs the prejudice and Ms. Jefferson's failure to explain her delay, the Motion in Limine to Limit and Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Dietze (Rec. Doc. 101) is DENIED; however, as a sanction for the delay ... Ms. Jefferson's counsel shall pay Barriere's reasonable attorneys' fees of $7,500 within 30 days.”
Her R&R (2025-07-23, R. Doc. 10) is supported by DJ Vance's adoption order (2025-09-02). Pro se IFP state-prisoner sec1983 reviewed under 1915/Spears screening; recommended DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Objection overruled, ADOPTED (federal claims w/prej; state-law claims dismissed w/o prejudice). This screening dismissal did not resolve a party motion.
“Motions to Compel are hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“a partial award of attorneys' fees is appropriate”
“GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Motion for Leave to File First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Rec. Doc. 20) is GRANTED”
“The Motion to Terminate or Dissolve the Consent Decree (Rec. Doc. 157) is taken under submission pending the resolution of the preceding questions”
Sua sponte screening recommendation of dismissal without prejudice for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction after a show-cause order (no party motion).
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 | 1 | 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 | 1 |
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 Meerveld: 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 Meerveld with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Meerveld, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Meerveld's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace