Judith Gail Dein
How Judge Dein rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dein
Judith G. Dein is a recalled U.S. magistrate judge in the District of Massachusetts. First appointed on July 31, 2000, she served as chief magistrate judge from 2009 to 2012. She earned degrees from Union College and Boston College Law School.
Judge Dein's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dein, 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
Conferences
A decision maker must attend mediation; telephone attendance requires advance permission.
“Yes, a party with decision making authority must be present, with prior permission, on occasion I allow the decision maker to be available by phone.”
Trial
File disputed exhibits with the relevant motion; undisputed exhibits may be provided at trial.
“If they are disputed, they should be filed with the appropriate motion. Otherwise they can be provided at trial.”
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 Dein decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Statute-of-limitations defense at the pleading stage: Dein applied the Massachusetts SJC's COVID-19 tolling orders to Title IX claims brought in Massachusetts, following the reasoning that tolling extended to 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. A defendant arguing a Title IX claim is time-barred must account for the SJC tolling window.
“the SJC’s COVID-19 tolling orders should apply to Title IX claims, like those at issue in this case, that have been brought in Massachusetts.”
In Cozy v. Dorel Juvenile Group, she denied a motion to dismiss inequitable-conduct counterclaims because Dorel had pleaded sufficient facts and the merits required a fuller record.
“Dorel has alleged sufficient facts to withstand a motion to dismiss, and the merits of its counterclaims will have to be assessed on a fuller record. Cozy’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In Wipro Limited v. Analog Devices, Dein read the unambiguous master agreement and statement of work together, holding that the statement’s termination-for-convenience provision displaced only the parallel clause and left termination-for-cause intact.
“The reading of these unambiguous agreements together mandates the conclusion that SOW § 20.2.1(a) supersedes only MPSA § 13(c), the MPSA’s parallel termination for convenience provision. MPSA § 13(d), providing for termination for cause, remains in effect.”
Cautions
FMLA interference claims: the threshold element is that the employer DENIED an FMLA benefit the employee was entitled to. An employee who received every leave she requested cannot make out interference, regardless of other workplace grievances: this is fatal at summary judgment.
“To succeed on a claim of interference with FMLA rights, ‘a plaintiff must first show that her employer denied her FMLA benefits to which she was entitled.’”
Massachusetts anti-SLAPP special motions to dismiss: the movant must show the claims are based SOLELY on its petitioning activity. Conduct like recruiting/soliciting clients is not protected petitioning, so the immunity does not attach and the special motion fails.
“they are not entitled to avail themselves of the immunity provided by the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute. Accordingly, this court recommends that their motion to dismiss be denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Because the plaintiffs have failed to allege plausible claims against Harvard for gender discrimination under Title IX, Count Three of the Amended Complaint is dismissed. However, Harvard's motion is otherwise denied.”
“‘Plaintiff Cozy, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims’ (Docket No. 70) is DENIED.”
“‘Defendants Fitzgerald and Brigid Hart-Molloy’s Motion to Dismiss’ (Docket No. 19) is ALLOWED. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”
“‘Defendant Maryellen Shea’s Motion for Summary Judgment’ (Docket No. 100) ... are ALLOWED.”
“‘Defendants Northeastern University and Paul Zernicke’s Motion for Summary Judgment’ (Docket No. 102) are ALLOWED.”
“‘Analog Devices, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Contract Interpretation’ (Docket No. 40) is ALLOWED.”
“‘Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment’ (Docket No. 73) is ALLOWED and the ‘Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment’ (Docket No. 77) is DENIED.”
“‘Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment’ (Docket No. 77) is DENIED.”
“this court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned that the ‘Motion by Jeffrey Glassman and Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman LLC, Under the Massachusetts Anti-SLAPP Statute, to Dismiss All State Law Claims Against Them ...’ (Docket No. 344) be DENIED.”
“the defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“The Defendants’ Motion for Costs (Docket No. 136) is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1061 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 197.5 days (N = 4).
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 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Dein: 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 Dein with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dein, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dein's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace