Jennifer C. Boal
How Judge Boal rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Boal
Jennifer C. Boal has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Massachusetts since May 3, 2010. She served as chief magistrate judge from 2014 to 2017. She earned degrees from Haverford College and Cornell Law School.
Judge Boal's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Boal, 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 - Motions for Stipulated Protective Orders ↗
- Standing Order - Briefing of Summary Judgment Motions ↗
- Standing Order - Courtroom Opportunities for Relatively Inexperienced Attorneys ↗
- Standing Order - Protective Orders in Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order - Courtesy Copies ↗
- Defendant's Waiver of Appearance at Arraignment ↗
- Scheduling Order for Referral Cases ↗
- Scheduling Order for Consent Cases ↗
- Initial Pretrial Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Provide courtesy copies for documents over 100 pages, following the standing order on courtesy copies.
“Yes, I require courtesy copies for documents that are over 100 pages long. The parties should comply with my Standing Order Re: Courtesy Copies dated October 7, 2022.”
Filing
Place courtesy copies in a binder.
“I require the courtesy copies to be placed in a binder.”
Trial
Mark uncontested exhibits in one numerical sequence regardless of which party offers them.
“Yes, I require uncontested exhibits to be marked by a single sequence of numbers regardless of which party is the proponent.”
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 Boal decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia Corp., she recommended denying both dismissal and a request for a more definite statement because the PCB complaint gave the defendants enough information to answer and seek details in discovery.
“I recommend that the District Court deny the Defendants' motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement.”
Procedural preferences
In Bingham v. Supervalu, Boal recommended granting the defendant's summary-judgment motion and denying the estate's request to certify questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
“this Court recommends ... that she grant Supervalu's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 62) and deny the Estate's motion to certify questions of law to the SJC (Docket No. 78).”
Cautions
In Butler v. Shire, Boal recommended dismissing the claim because the plaintiff had not alleged that he gave the written notice required by the governing statute before suit.
“Here, Butler does not allege that he provided Shire with written notice retaining his right”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“this Court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned that she grant Supervalu's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 62)”
“and deny the Estate's motion to certify questions of law to the SJC (Docket No. 78).”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the District Court deny the Defendants' motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement.”
“this Court recommends that the District Court deny Bear Hill's [motion for summary judgment]; ... judgment should be denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that the District Judge assigned to this case grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that any efficiency gains and cost benefits to the Plaintiff from joining the Doe Defendants in a single action are substantially outweighed by fairness concerns and inefficiencies... Accordingly, this Court recommends that the District Judge assigned to this case exercise its discretion to sever Does 2-22 from this action.”
“Having found that the subpoenas contain erroneous information and given the attendant risks and burdens imposed upon potentially innocent subscribers, the Court hereby quashes all twenty-two subpoenas in this case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons included in my report and recommendation on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, I recommend that Judge Sorokin grant in part and deny in part the parties' motions to strike.”
“Based on all of the circumstances, the Court finds that dismissal is not warranted in this case. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to recommend that the District Court dismiss this case.”
“For the following reasons, this Court grants in part both motions.”
“This Court denies Defendants' motion for spoliation without prejudice to renewal after the May 16, 2025, production.”
“This Court denies Da Veiga's request for sanctions and attorney's fees.”
“For the following reasons, this Court grants in part and denies in part the motion. ... Accordingly, this Court orders Zealand US to remove redactions regarding the three disputed categories.”
“As the Defendants have failed to show that she was in fact not adequately prepared, this Court denies their request for an order compelling One World to again provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and grant the Plaintiffs' motion for an order barring any further deposition of a corporate representative of One World.”
“Accordingly, I deny Chaleplis's motion for a protective order barring any further deposition and order Chaleplis to appear for a continued deposition in person in Boston at a mutually agreeable date within 30 days.”
“Attorney Kasolas's conduct in recording the deposition was improper. At this time, however, this Court declines to impose sanctions.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court denies the motion.”
“this Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' request for sanctions.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Boal writes reports and recommendations on referred dispositive motions, directly decides discovery and sanctions matters assigned for pretrial management, and enters final decisions in Social Security cases when the parties consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
- The Social Security sample excludes stipulated remands conceded by the agency so those agreements do not distort the claimant-outcome counts.
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 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Boal: 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 Boal with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boal, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Boal's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace