Christopher L. Morgan
How Judge Morgan rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Morgan
Christopher L. Morgan became a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2026. He sits in Springfield and earned degrees from Middlebury College and Boston College Law School.
Judge Morgan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Morgan, 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 request for leave to file a reply or surreply must specify the proposed page count.
“At this time, I do not have a set limit. A party seeking leave to file a reply or surreply should specifcially state, however, how many pages it is seeking for a reply or surreply.”
Discovery
The judge prefers that parties try to negotiate a confidentiality agreement before seeking a protective order.
“I do not have a deadline for the filing of a protective order. My preference, however, is that the parties should attempt to negotiate and enter into a confidentiality agreement before seeking a protective order.”
Conferences
Each party must submit a confidential mediation memorandum of no more than five pages.
“Each party is required to submit a confidential memorandum of up to five pages addressing the expected issues at mediation.”
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 Morgan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
For a protective order excluding a nonparty from depositions, he requires a concrete factual showing of likely disruption or harm rather than generalized concern.
“A finding of good cause must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements.”
When deciding substitution after a transfer of interest, he treats Rule 25(c) as discretionary and asks whether changing the parties would facilitate the litigation.
“the court has considerable leeway under Rule 25(c) in deciding whether to allow Maple Street to continue alone, substitute Mr. Zherka for Maple Street, or join Mr. Zherka with Maple Street.”
In Branch, Morgan allowed an employment retaliation claim to proceed after the employer failed to establish a reason that defeated the plaintiff’s inference of retaliation, while granting summary judgment on other claims.
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 73) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and hostile work environment but DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Mr. Zherka’s motion to file a reply brief in further support of his substitution or joinder motion (Dkt. Nos. 183) is ALLOWED”
“his motion for substitution (Dkt. No. 161) is DENIED”
“rendering his motion for a stay of discovery (Dkt. No. 164) MOOT”
“Defendant’s motion for a protective order enjoining Mr. Zherka from attending any of the depositions in this matter is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 186)”
“Defendant’s motion to strike Zherka’s non-party filings, including his response at Dkt. Nos. 188 and his motion at Dkt. No. 202 (Dkt. No. 205) is GRANTED.”
Morgan recommended dismissal without prejudice after the plaintiff's attempted amended pleading remained too disorganized to identify the defendants and the conduct attributed to each. The district judge adopted the recommendation on June 30, 2026. No party motion was before Morgan, so the recommendation is excluded from motion statistics.
“GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 21),”
“DENIES the Commissioner’s motion to affirm (Dkt. No. 25),”
“GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to reverse (Dkt. No. 11),”
“DENIES the Commissioner’s motion to affirm (Dkt. No. 15),”
“DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 8).”
“GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion to affirm (Dkt. No. 10)”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 73) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and hostile work environment but DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.”
“Dr. Porcher’s flat fee is not reasonable and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.”
“GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend”
“Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time to respond to the Court’s December 9 Memorandum and Order (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED.”
“GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings”
“DENIES the Commissioner’s motion to affirm (Dkt. No. 27),”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 444 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 9 days (N = 9).
The screened assignments included Social Security, defamation, consumer-credit, civil-rights, labor, insurance, and environmental disputes. Most were filed during the judge’s first months on the bench; the additional insurance docket supplied three procedural rulings.
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 |
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 District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Morgan: 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 Morgan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Morgan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Morgan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace