Donald L. Cabell
How Judge Cabell rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cabell
Donald L. Cabell has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Massachusetts since January 21, 2015. He sits in Boston and served as chief magistrate judge from 2023 to 2026. He earned degrees from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Northeastern University School of Law.
Judge Cabell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Cabell, 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.
- Judicial Forum Survey ↗
- Notice of and Order with Respect to Mediation ↗
- Scheduling and Instruction Order Sample ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Contact the courtroom deputy about a discovery issue first; file a discovery motion only if the ensuing telephone conference does not resolve it.
“Under our standing order, parties must first contact the courtroom deputy clerk, typically by e-mail, to summarize what the discovery issue is. We then will convene a telephone conference with the goal of helping the parties to narrow or resolve the issue. If the telephone conference is not successful, only then will the party be authorized to file a discovery motion.”
Discovery
Submit a proposed discovery plan with expert-discovery deadlines before the scheduling conference.
“Parties are required to submit a proposed discovery plan prior to the scheduling conference which includes expert discovery deadlines. As long as it is agreed-to and reasonable, I generally endorse the proposed plan. I do not typically set a schedule for the filing of Daubert motions.”
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 Cabell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Factory Mutual v. Skanska, Cabell denied summary judgment on an anti-subrogation defense because neither the policy nor the construction contracts made the defendants insureds under the owner’s policy.
“In sum, neither the Policy nor the record as a whole supports the assertion that the Policy’s ‘Property Damage’ provision makes the defendants insureds in addition to Novartis.”
In Lowell General Hospital v. OptumRx, Cabell compelled production beyond an asserted discovery date cutoff after finding that the parties had no formal agreement on that cutoff and had themselves sought information outside it.
“The court has now been persuaded that no such formal understanding was reached.”
Procedural preferences
In D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, Cabell allowed press intervention and partly unsealed records. He distinguished redacted testimony supported only by broad security assertions from a separate declaration for which the government supplied a more specific showing.
“However, unlike their showing regarding the Hegseth declaration, they did not file any affidavits and did not address the substance of the redacted testimony.”
Cautions
In Netherlands Insurance v. HP, Cabell denied a motion to compel printer-fire discovery filed long after the written-discovery deadline and after summary-judgment briefing was underway. He also found the requested discovery improper in scope.
“As such, the court finds that the motion to compel is untimely.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, ‘Defendant, Kenneth Egan’s Motion to Dismiss’ (D. 12) is DENIED.”
“in favor of defendant James Floyd and the Town of Plainville. The complaint is accordingly dismissed against the Town of Plainville where it is named only in Count I. The motion is DENIED with respect to Counts II and III.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.37) is DENIED.”
“Counts II and III are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (D. 5) is ALLOWED.”
“the court’s previous electronic order on this motion (Dkt. No. 148) is VACATED and Acclarent’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 125) is ALLOWED.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the defendants Daniel J. Lewis and Canterbury Ventures, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 89) be DENIED.”
“the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversing the Secretary’s decision is DENIED”
“the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment affirming its decision is ALLOWED.”
“The government’s motion to dismiss Count Four of the amended complaint is GRANTED.”
“the motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Count Four against defendants Garside and Burne. The remainder of the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint”
“the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff’s income tax returns is DENIED.”
“the motion to compel (D. 114) is DENIED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1102 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 310.5 days (N = 2).
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 | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Cabell: 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 Cabell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cabell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cabell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace