Allison Dale Burroughs
How Judge Burroughs rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Burroughs
Allison Dale Burroughs is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Burroughs received a commission on December 19, 2014.
Judge Burroughs's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Burroughs, 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
Motions
A reply or surreply is limited to ten pages absent leave for a longer filing.
“Yes. 10 pages, absent leave to file a longer reply or sur reply.”
Conferences
In routine cases, propose a schedule that aims to make the case ready for trial within a year after the first scheduling conference.
“No. In routine cases, the schedule proposed by the parties should endeavor to have the case ready for trial within 1 year of the initial scheduling 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 Burroughs decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a challenge to insurers’ premium tiers for service members, she denied dismissal after finding a plausible Chapter 93A claim and leaving the fairness of the practice for a later record.
“Following discovery, which should shed light on how and why it was determined which insureds were placed into which pool, Defendants may ask the Court to revisit this issue.”
In a hospital web-tracking suit, she dismissed an ECPA claim because the complaint did not allege interception for the purpose of committing a crime or tort.
“Because the Amended Complaint fails to assert that Defendants intercepted communications ‘for the purpose of committing [a] criminal or tortious act,’ 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), the ECPA claim must fail.”
Procedural preferences
In a USERRA reemployment suit, she denied the defendant’s summary-judgment motion because its briefing lacked the Local Rule 56.1 statement of undisputed facts needed to adjudicate the motion.
“Accordingly, the Court is unable to adjudicate summary judgment on the documents presented by the parties and, therefore, denies Elite’s motion for summary judgment.”
On a bankruptcy appeal, she denied a stay because the appellant omitted information and record materials required by Rule 8007 and did not show likely success on appeal.
“Appellant has not complied with the procedural requirements outlined in Rule 8007, warranting dismissal of his Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.”
Cautions
In an FTCA suit, she denied the government’s timeliness dismissal request after finding that the plaintiffs lacked notice of the agency’s denial, diligently pursued their claim, and a two-week delay was unlikely to prejudice the government.
“Based on these facts, all five factors weigh in favor of equitably tolling Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims.”
In United States v. Bennett, Burroughs granted the government’s detention request after finding clear and convincing evidence that the defendant posed a danger to the community.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is GRANTED without prejudice and with leave to amend within 21 days.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part. Paragraphs 13-35 of the Complaint are dismissed as untimely, and the claims against Defendants North, Arbour, Urquhart, and Carlyle are dismissed for failure to state a claim.”
“Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 11], is DENIED.”
“For these reasons, the Government's motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 15], is DENIED in its entirety.”
“Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Webb's motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 9], is DENIED.”
“Summary judgment is DENIED as to Rita Melkonian, Tricia Willard, and Karen Ensley, and GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to Nerissa Burke.”
“Accordingly, the Court is unable to adjudicate summary judgment on the documents presented by the parties and, therefore, denies Elite's motion for summary judgment.”
“To the extent that Mr. Bonbon's submission is styled a ‘Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment,’ the motion is denied for the same reason.”
“Harvard's motion for summary judgment, [Harvard, ECF No. 69], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“the Organizational Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, [AAUP, ECF No. 74], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count V is therefore GRANTED. ... Harvard's and Defendants' summary judgment motions in Case No. 25-cv-11048 are otherwise DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, [ECF No. 5], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court certifies the following class: All individuals who (i) scheduled their appointments for entry to the United States using the CBP One app...”
“Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 32], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... Summary judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiffs on their first through third claims.”
“Defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 39], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Burke's motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 171], is DENIED.”
“The City's motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 173] is GRANTED IN PART insofar as Plaintiffs' claims are based on the City's written policies, code of silence, failure to supervise, and failure to train and DENIED IN PART insofar as they are based on the acts of City policymakers.”
“Defendants' motion to bifurcate, [ECF No. 175], is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 36], is GRANTED in relation to Count I, and DENIED as to Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII. Further, BRP Group is dismissed as a Defendant.”
“DFA's motion as to Count II and Counterclaim II is therefore DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, both parties' motions are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 714 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 240.5 days (N = 4).
- Burroughs's docket includes Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Insys Therapeutics prosecution, United States v. Salemme, and administrative-law challenges involving university funding and federal policy.
- The sampled civil matters also include False Claims Act, consumer, personal-injury, disability-access, and alien-detainee habeas cases.
- These examples illustrate the range of matters reviewed and are not a quantitative measure of her 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 | 17 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 17 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 16 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 17 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 13 |
| Sep 2020 | 26 | 17 |
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 U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Burroughs: 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 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,095 | 3.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 881 | 7.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 676 | 17.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 30 | 34.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,439 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,756 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,222 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,582 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,391 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,438 | 23 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 Burroughs with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Burroughs, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Burroughs's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace