Leo Theodore Sorokin
How Judge Sorokin rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sorokin
Leo Theodore Sorokin is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Sorokin received a commission on June 10, 2014.
Judge Sorokin's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sorokin, 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 - Courtroom Opportunites for Inexperienced Lawyers ↗
- Standing Order - Summary Judgment ↗
- Standing Order - Default Protective Order in Complex Cases ↗
- Standing Order - Courtesy Copies ↗
- Civil Pre-Trial Scheduling Order ↗
- Standing Order re Summary Judgment ↗
- Criminal Scheduling Order ↗
- Civil Trial Order ↗
Key rules
Motions
Replies of up to five pages may be filed without advance leave; surreplies require leave.
“I allow reply briefs limited to 5 pages in length on all motions without advance leave of court. However, parties must seek leave of court if they wish to file surreply briefs.”
Trial
Provide two court copies of exhibits at the start of trial.
“I do not require advance submission of exhibits, but I do expect the parties to provide two court copies (one for me, and one for my law clerk) at the start of trial.”
Trial
A trial brief in a civil or criminal case should identify facts, witnesses, exhibits, anticipated duration, outstanding motions in limine, and likely legal issues.
“Yes, in both civil and criminal cases. It should include a factual summary, a list of witnesses and exhibits, an estimate of how long the party's case will last, and any outstanding motions in limine or anticipated legal issues that may arise during trial. See attached order (Q80).”
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 Sorokin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ken’s Foods v. Steadfast Insurance, Sorokin declined to recognize a Massachusetts common-law right to recover mitigation costs from the insurer where the cited controlling authorities did not establish that right.
“In these circumstances and mindful of the admonition that '[f]ederal courts are not free to extend the reach of state law,' the Court declines to 'extend state law beyond its well-marked boundaries in an area . . . that is quintessentially the province of state courts.'”
In Stone v. Harvard College, Sorokin declined to resolve several Equal Pay Act limitations questions on the pleadings because Harvard had not established the affirmative defense with the certainty required at that stage.
“Given the framework governing review of a complaint on a motion to dismiss, coupled with the burden Harvard bears on its affirmative defense, the Court concludes Harvard has failed to establish at this stage that the EPA claim is limited to two or three years. In this case, these are questions better determined based on the fuller factual record typically available at summary judgment or trial.”
Procedural preferences
In Jones v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Sorokin applied Local Rule 56.1 in the prisoner’s summary-judgment case: the plaintiff filed no statement of undisputed material facts or response controverting the defendants’ statement.
“In the ordinary course, failure to file such a statement constitutes 'grounds for denial of the [summary judgment] motion,' and failure to controvert material facts set forth in an opposing party's statement is deemed an admission for purposes of a summary judgment motion. See Local Rule 56.1”
In Collymore’s pro se retail-discrimination suit, he denied dismissal of the amended complaint because its allegations supported a racial-discrimination claim despite lacking a statute citation and numbered paragraphs.
“And, while the Court agrees that the amended complaint is not perfect, inasmuch as it does not set forth the federal statute under which Collymore appears to be proceeding and does not include numbers to the four paragraphs, it meets the low bar of meeting the basic pleading requirements to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Cautions
In Lemos v. Bank of America, Sorokin examined the merits of an unopposed motion to dismiss, including documents integral to the complaint, and dismissed the mortgage claims after finding the complaint insufficient.
“Although Lemos has not opposed this motion, the Court addressed the merits of each claim, as 'the mere fact that a motion to dismiss is unopposed does not relieve [this Court] of the obligation to examine the complaint itself to see whether it is formally sufficient to state a claim.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ADOPTS Judge Boal's R&R (Doc. No. 41), ALLOWS that much of the Motion to Dismiss regarding the statute of limitation barring the MEPA claims outside the limitations period, and OTHERWISE DENIES the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13).”
“Accordingly, Ken's Foods' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED and Steadfast's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 24) is ALLOWED insofar as it seeks a declaration that costs undertaken to avoid a suspension of operations are not covered by the applicable insurance policy and that Ken's Foods is not entitled to such costs under Massachusetts common law.”
“Additionally, the Court ALLOWS Steadfast's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Ken's Foods' claims pursuant to chapters 93A and 176D of the Massachusetts General Laws. Doc. No. 24.”
“For the reasons stated above, Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 9, is ALLOWED.”
“The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The Court ALLOWS the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, Doc. Nos. 118, 122, and DENIES Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 125.”
“Accordingly, Jones' motion for summary judgment is DENIED and Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED. The Clerk shall close the case.”
“Defendant Tannery's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED as MOOT.”
“Defendant Tannery's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26) is DENIED.”
“Southcoast's motion for partial summary judgment is ALLOWED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 63, is DENIED, and Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 69, is ALLOWED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 63, is DENIED, and Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 69, is ALLOWED. The clerk will enter judgment in favor of Navient Solutions, Inc., and close the case.”
“the Court finds that the Complaint was timely filed and the Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 20, is DENIED.”
“the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 74, is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal after the close of discovery.”
“Demtech's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 44), is ALLOWED.”
“AHFC's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 43, is ALLOWED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 228 days (N = 16).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 200 days (N = 1).
- Sorokin's docket includes alien-detainee habeas and immigration-mandamus petitions, False Claims Act litigation involving Teva Pharmaceuticals and Shire, and sampled civil matters concerning trademarks, insurance, employee benefits, consumer credit, civil rights, employment, racketeering, and immigration.
- These examples illustrate the range of matters reviewed and are not a quantitative measure of his full caseload.
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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 Sorokin: 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 Sorokin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sorokin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sorokin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace