Douglas Preston Woodlock
How Judge Woodlock rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Woodlock
Douglas Preston Woodlock is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Woodlock received a commission on June 16, 1986. Judge Woodlock assumed senior status on June 1, 2015.
Judge Woodlock's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Woodlock, 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.
- Standing Order - Order Setting Criminal Jury Trial ↗
- Standing Order - Order Setting Civil Jury Trial ↗
- Standing Order - Scheduling Order ↗
- Standing Order - Notice of Rule 11 Hearing ↗
- Standing Order - Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference ↗
- Standing Order - Order Regulating Non-Jury Civil Trial ↗
- Standing Order/Sample Order - Notice of Initial Scheduling Conference, Order for Joint Statement and Certifications, and Order for Electronic Filing ↗
Key rules
Conferences
A continuance of the initial scheduling conference may be granted only when counsel is actually engaged in trial.
“Counsel may be given a continuance only if actually engaged on trial.”
Conferences
Plaintiff’s counsel must notify parties and attorneys who have not appeared of the scheduling conference date.
“Counsel for the plaintiff is responsible for ensuring that all parties and/or their attorneys, who have not filed an answer or appearance with the court, are notified of the scheduling conference date.”
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 Woodlock decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lowery v. Town of Westwood, Woodlock dismissed a disability-discrimination suit as time-barred. He treated the statute of limitations as the threshold issue despite other pleading defects raised by the defendants.
“Although the defendants' motion raises shortcomings in the pleading of plaintiff's complaint, the most fundamental problem concerns the threshold question of statute of limitations.”
On ERISA denial-of-benefits, unambiguous plan language governs and is enforced even when the result is harsh; informal communications and estoppel cannot override clear plan terms.
“As unfortunate as it has turned out to be for a formality to bear such outsized financial consequences, no legal doctrine allows Mr. Kurma to avoid the unambiguous operation of the Plan in this case.”
In Performance Indicator v. Once Innovations, Woodlock rejected a failure-to-mitigate argument at summary judgment because the defendant simultaneously denied any contract or breach that would give rise to a duty to mitigate.
“This is not mere alternative pleading but rather constitutes fundamental contradiction.”
Procedural preferences
In F.H. Cann & Associates v. Moorman, he denied a pro se defendant’s motion to dismiss because it recited the legal standard but offered no developed argument.
“Mr. Moorman’s motion to dismiss is far too underdeveloped for a court to indulge his contentions.”
In consolidated IDEA litigation involving CBDE Public Schools, Woodlock dismissed premature litigation over an administrative hearing and later denied a fee claim where administrative findings had not provided relief. He described the related litigation as needless.
“The parties and their counsel here have consumed their own resources and imposed on their adversaries the obligation to do likewise in the pursuit of needless litigation”
In an ERISA fee award, Judge Woodlock independently reviewed hourly rates even though the defendants did not contest them; he reduced two requested rates while granting the supported hours.
“Defendants do not contest K.D.’s requested hourly rates. I nevertheless will independently address the applicable hourly rates here.”
Cautions
A fee claimant must show a judicially-sanctioned material alteration of the legal relationship (Buckhannon); administrative findings of fact with no ordered relief do not make a party 'prevailing.'
“Administrative findings of fact - even findings of fact entitled to substantial deference - in the absence of any form of legal relief, do not constitute binding directives resulting in a material change in the legal relationship between the parties sufficient to make the Does prevailing parties under Buckhannon.”
In Tinory v. AutoZoners, he granted the employer summary judgment after finding three mocking incidents insufficiently pervasive for a hostile-environment claim and the employer’s response reasonable once it learned of the conduct.
“three instances of mocking by subordinates in almost a year of employment does not rise to the level of pervasiveness required to create an objectively hostile or abusive environment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“I DENY the defendant's motion [Dkt. No. 9] to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
“After DENYING in part and GRANTING in part the plaintiffs' motion [Dkt. No. 15] to strike, I GRANT the plaintiffs' motion [Dkt. No. 11] for preliminary injunctive relief.”
“I GRANT the plaintiffs' motion [Dkt. No. 11] for preliminary injunctive relief.”
“in Civil Action No. 11-10874, I GRANT the Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 18 & 19)”
“in Civil Action No. 12-11082, I GRANT CBDE's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 4).”
“Accordingly, I must GRANT Starmark's motion for summary judgment.”
“I GRANT the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all Claims for Relief, DENY the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and direct the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants.”
“I DENY Defendant Once Innovations' motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 29) in its entirety.”
“The § 2255 motions of the Brothers Tkhilaishvili must be and are DENIED.”
“I GRANT Dr. Bergus's motion [Dkt. No. 158] for attorney's fees and costs to the extent Dr. Florian is ORDERED to pay Dr. Bergus's attorney's fees in the amount of $546,188.70 and expenses in the amount of $2,139.31.”
“I GRANT Dr. Bergus's motion [Dkt. No. 165] for taxation of costs only to the extent Dr. Florian is ordered to pay the amount of $400.00.”
“I GRANT the Commission's Assented-To Motion for Entry of Proposed Final Judgment Against Defendant Ross I. McLellan [Dkt. No. 38].”
“I DENY the motions [Dkt. Nos. 41 and 59]”
“attorney’s fees in the amount of $79,122 and costs in the amount of $400.00.”
“I GRANT in part and DENY in part HC&D’s motion”
“I DENY, without prejudice, Cashman’s motion to dismiss for”
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 42 | 43 |
| Sep 2022 | 73 | 43 |
| Mar 2022 | 83 | 44 |
| Sep 2021 | 94 | 43 |
| Mar 2021 | 64 | 33 |
| Sep 2020 | 57 | 28 |
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 Woodlock: 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 Woodlock with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Woodlock, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Woodlock's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace