Indira Talwani
How Judge Talwani rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Talwani
Indira Talwani is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Talwani received a commission on May 12, 2014.
Judge Talwani's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Talwani, 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 ↗
- Standing Order – Notice of Related Cases ↗
- Standing Order – Motion Practice ↗
- Standing Order – Discovery Disputes ↗
- Standing Order – Protective Orders and Motions for Leave to File Under Seal ↗
- Standing Order – Local Rule 5.4 and Mandatory Electronic Filing ↗
- Standing Order – Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time ↗
- Standing Order – Courtroom Opportunities For Young Attorneys ↗
- Template – Proposed Scheduling Order (Civil) ↗
- Template – Proposed Scheduling Order (Patent) ↗
Key rules
Filing
Counsel must inform the court about related cases.
“Yes. Counsel must inform the court of any related cases.”
Filing
Supply one tabbed courtesy copy when covered affidavits or other filings exceed 20 pages.
“Yes, I require one courtesy copy, with exhibit tabs, for affidavits and other documents exceeding 20 pages or evidencing facts submitted pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b) (1) if such filings in connection with a particular motion exceed twenty pages (exclusive of the length).”
Motions
Outside summary judgment, reply briefs generally require good cause.
“Reply briefs are permitted under Local Rule 56.1 in connection with summary judgment motions. I typically do not otherwise allow reply briefs absent good cause.”
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 Talwani decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In D.F. Pray, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Co., she denied a preliminary injunction compelling the insurer to advance defense costs because the company had not shown likely irreparable harm.
“Plaintiff has not demonstrated there is a likely risk of irreparable harm if its request for an injunction was denied and therefore does not satisfy the standard for a preliminary injunction.”
In DeWayne v. JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., she dismissed claims against MERS as barred by res judicata after earlier judgments involving the same mortgage dispute.
“the doctrine of res judicata once again bars Plaintiff's claims in this action. Accordingly, MERS' Motion to Dismiss [#10] is GRANTED.”
In Britton v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, she dismissed a RICO claim because the plaintiffs’ overbilling allegations did not plead facts supporting fraudulent intent with Rule 9(b) particularity.
“Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged the predicate acts of fraud with the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).”
In a False Claims Act qui tam case, she found that a kickback theory failed for lack of scienter, while evidence about company representatives performing clinical work and offering free staffing allowed another false-claims theory to survive summary judgment.
“fails for lack of scienter; however, Relator's allegations that false claims were being submitted to federal health care programs survives summary judgment”
Procedural preferences
In Bakri v. Cruz Management, Talwani denied a tenant's request to stop a pending state Housing Court eviction. She found the requested relief barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and rejected the asserted bad-faith-harassment exception.
“Where Bakri again asks this court to order the Massachusetts Housing Court to halt the eviction proceedings against her, the relief she seeks is within the ambit of the Anti-Injunction Act's prohibitions. Bakri's Amended Motion [Doc. No. 27] is therefore DENIED in its entirety.”
In Tran v. Lyons, Talwani granted habeas relief and ordered release after officials revoked the petitioner's supervised release without an individualized determination that changed circumstances made removal reasonably foreseeable.
“At the time of Petitioner’s revocation of supervised release, Respondents failed to make an individualized determination that, based on changed circumstances, there is a significant likelihood that Petitioner may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
In Britton v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, she denied reconsideration after finding no manifest legal error, newly discovered evidence, or misunderstanding of the earlier ruling.
“the granting of a motion for reconsideration is ‘an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.’”
In Saade v. Fay Servicing, she denied leave to amend claims concerning mortgage notices because the notices supplied the required contact information and the proposed pleading identified no false statements.
“When leave to amend is sought before discovery is complete, and neither party has moved for summary judgment, futility is gauged by the same standard as legal sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6).”
Cautions
In Cognitive Edge v. Code Genesys, she denied a stay of a money judgment without a supersedeas bond because the defendants’ financial distress alone did not warrant waiver and they offered no alternative security.
“The power of the court to waive the supersedeas bond requirement should be exercised only in ‘extraordinary circumstances.’”
In D.F. Pray, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Co., she denied sanctions sought in a reply brief because the plaintiff had not filed and served a separate Rule 11 motion with the required safe-harbor period.
“the court declines to award sanctions where Plaintiff has not followed the procedure set forth in Rule 11.”
In one commercial loan dispute, a Massachusetts business address and resulting financial loss did not sustain a state unfair-practices claim when the alleged misconduct and property centered outside Massachusetts.
“While, RGA likely suffered any alleged ‘financial loss’ at its principal place of business in Massachusetts, that fact alone is insufficient to establish a nexus sufficient to maintain Chapter 93A liability.”
In Wentz v. Moderna, Talwani rejected a proposed inference of scienter from an executive’s statement about vaccine trial data because the statement did not admit that a previously reported efficacy figure was inaccurate.
“the court is unable to reasonably construe Hoge’s statement as an admission.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 59] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 58], Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 55], and Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Motion [Doc. No. 65] (also filed in Gupta, et al. v. Jaddou, et al., 1:22-cv-11374, as Doc. No. 19 and Doc. No. 21) are DISMISSED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Request [#38] is ALLOWED and Defendants' Motion [#39] is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [#39] is denied as moot.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [#54] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“their Amended Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 182] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Emergency Motion to Confirm Stay Pending Appeal [#107] of the entire case is GRANTED as to Defendants' obligation to answer Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint [#147] and as to discovery, and otherwise is DENIED”
“Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [#90] is DENIED.”
“Medtronic's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Witkin's False Claims Act Claims [Doc. No. 175] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Bakri's Amended Motion for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 27] is DENIED in its entirety.”
“Plaintiff's Application for Preliminary Injunction Ordering Specific Performance [Doc. No. 2] and Reply in Support of its Application for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Sanctions Based Upon Perjurious Statements [Doc. No. 16] are DENIED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [Doc. No. 45] is DENIED.”
“Anderson's Motion to Certify the Class or in the Alternative to Add Forty-Three Additional Plaintiffs [Doc. No. 57] is GRANTED”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 54] is DENIED”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 55] is GRANTED as to Martin Sports and David Martin and DENIED as to Theresa Martin.”
“Defendant MERS' Motion to Dismiss [#10] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction [#47] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Amend Judgment and Direct the Entry of a New Judgment or to Order a New Trial [#92] is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees [#87] is DENIED without prejudice”
“Defendants' Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment and Any Proceedings to Enforce the Judgment [#95] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 158 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 0.5 days (N = 2).
The reviewed cases span immigration, public-records, False Claims Act, consumer-finance, product-liability, Social Security, student-discipline, and trade-secret disputes. Several ended in settlement or voluntary dismissal, while the two selected 2023 cases supplied contested dismissal rulings. These examples show only the range of matters reviewed.
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 | 16 |
| 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 | 31 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 16 | 31 |
| Sep 2025 | 18 | 26 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 81 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 131 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 132 |
| Sep 2023 | 11 | 139 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 119 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 209 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 118 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 53 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 14 | 11 |
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 Talwani: 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 Talwani with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Talwani, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Talwani's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace