Nannette Jolivette Brown
How Judge Brown rules, drawn from 53 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brown
Nannette Jolivette Brown is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Brown received a commission on October 4, 2011.
Judge Brown's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brown, 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 ↗
- Standing Order Brown Sch Orders ↗
- revised pretrial notice- judge brown March 2018 ↗
- SecGOutline ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Avoid improper ex parte communications.
“Please help us avoid improper ex parte communications.”
Filing
Judge Brown discourages courtesy copies of motions.
“Judge Jolivette Brown discourages parties from delivering to Chambers courtesy copies of motions.”
Filing
File sentencing memoranda by 4:30 p.m. on the third working day before sentencing.
“Sentencing memoranda must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on the third working day prior to the date of the sentencing hearing.”
Discovery
Obtain prior approval before waiving or changing Rule 26 disclosures or staying discovery.
“The Court will not allow the parties to waive Rule 26 initial disclosures, alter the deadline within which to make Rule 26 disclosures, or agree to stay discovery, without prior approval from the Court.”
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 Brown decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gilmore v. Kenner PC III, L.L.C., she set aside a clerk's default and allowed an answer after finding excusable neglect, no prejudice to the plaintiff, and a potentially meritorious defense.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's 'Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default' is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court's Preliminary Entry of Default is SET ASIDE.”
For a represented pro se plaintiff who had not previously amended, she allowed a targeted amendment where additional facts might cure an employer-confidentiality claim, while dismissing legally unavailable claims with prejudice.
“Because Plaintiff filed this Complaint pro se, has not previously been granted leave to amend the Complaint, and has since retained counsel, the Court grants her leave to amend the Complaint to clarify the ADA claim against Jefferson Parish.”
Procedural preferences
In Rucker v. Brigham, she denied an eve-of-trial extension of dispositive-motion and motion-in-limine deadlines because the defendants had not shown good cause under Rule 16(b).
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Moving Defendants' 'Joint Motion to Extend Motion Disposition Deadline' is DENIED.”
In Williams v. Gelco Fleet Trust, Brown extended the defendants' expert-disclosure deadline after finding good cause, but declined to continue trial or the other pretrial deadlines on the record then before her.
“Here, the Court finds that Defendants have established good cause for a continuance of the expert disclosure deadline. However, the Court finds that Defendants have not established good cause for a continuance of trial or the other pretrial deadlines at this time.”
In an oil-contamination complaint, Brown left disputed questions about a design contractor’s breach and causation for later factual development after finding the negligence allegations plausible at the dismissal stage.
“However, these factual inquiries cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.”
In the reviewed employment case, Brown denied transfer after weighing convenience and finding that moving the case to another Louisiana district would likely delay its resolution.
“Because a transfer would likely delay the prompt resolution of these issues, this factor weighs in favor of maintaining venue in the Eastern District.”
In Meredith, the court allowed a late expert report and limited follow-up discovery because trial was months away and the opponent had not shown prejudice that required excluding the expert.
“Defendant has not shown prejudice that cannot be remedied through less drastic means than exclusion.”
Cautions
In United States v. Martin, Brown denied the defendant's Second Amendment challenge to the felon-in-possession statute. She found his facial challenge foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent and rejected his as-applied challenge.
“the Court finds that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional both on its face and as applied to Martin. The Fifth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Diaz forecloses the facial challenge ... Martin's as-applied challenge fails ... the Court denies the motion.”
In Davis v. Jantran, Inc., she excluded an expert's proposed legal conclusions about regulatory compliance, negligence, and workplace duties while allowing testimony about industry practices and crew fatigue.
“These opinions constitute impermissible legal conclusions because they apply the governing legal standards to the facts and effectively instruct the jury that Defendant breached duties owed to Plaintiff.”
In Cronin, Brown remanded for an unproven jurisdictional amount but declined to award fees because the removing party had an objectively reasonable basis to seek federal court.
“Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that attorney’s fees are warranted in this case. Although the Court finds that Defendant has not established that the amount in controversy is met, Plaintiffs have not shown Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that GM Financial's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as untimely filed.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay is GRANTED. Within ninety days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff shall file a motion to reopen the case or a motion to extend the stay. Failure to do so will result in DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE of this matter without further notice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's ‘Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Order’ is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CorrectHealth Jefferson, LLC and Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co.’s ‘Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint’ is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jarrod Carter’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jason Williams’s Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is DENIED.”
“GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of any claims against Dr. Joseph Mabey. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Moving Defendants' 'Joint Motion to Extend Motion Disposition Deadline' is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 45.0 days (N = 6).
From the enumerated 2021-2023 cases: a cluster of 'X v. United States' prisoner/habeas suits (thin docket record), federal criminal cases, many Hurricane Ida first-party insurance cases (Lloyds, State Farm, Bankers), and mortgage/negotiable-instrument diversity suits. NOS examples captured: 110 Insurance, Negotiable Instrument, Criminal, Prisoner/habeas.
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 | 80 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 70 |
| 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 Brown: 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 Brown with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brown, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brown's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace