Margaret R. Guzman
How Judge Guzman rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Guzman
Margaret Rose Guzman is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Guzman received a commission on March 3, 2023.
Judge Guzman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Guzman, 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 ↗
- Instructions Concerning Default Judgment Procedures ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Relatively Inexperienced Attorneys ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Appearance of Counsel via Telephone or Videoconference ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Summary Judgment Motion Practice ↗
- Scheduling Conference Procedural Order ↗
- Sentencing Procedural Order ↗
- Pretrial Order ↗
Key rules
Motions
Attach a proposed order to any motion for a protective order.
“Any motion for protective order must include a proposed order as an exhibit to the motion.”
Trial
File witness lists, voir dire requests, verdict forms, and jury instructions, and send Word versions to the courtroom deputy.
“Please review the pretrial standing order. Witness lists, requests for voir dire, verdict forms, and jury instructions must be filed on the docket as well as sent as a word document to the Courtroom Deputy.”
Trial
Provide a courtesy copy of any video tutorial three business days before its hearing.
“No particular practice, and I do allow tutorials. I also allow the submission of video tutorials. I encourage video tutorials which will be filed and made part of the record. File a courtesy copy of the video tutorial three business days in advance of the hearing.”
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 Guzman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Roman v. Lahey, Guzman dismissed medical-malpractice claims after the plaintiff failed to disclose an expert and could not prove the required standard of care.
“because Plaintiff will be unable to prove the medical standard of care required for his claims, the claims must be dismissed.”
In a dispute over damage to a classroom floor, Guzman found the policy's collapse provisions ambiguous and construed them in favor of the insured. She held that the general moisture exclusions did not bar coverage, while leaving the disputed question whether the floor had collapsed under the policy for a jury.
“because 'ambiguities in the Policy result in coverage for the collapse,' the general exclusions for 'condensation of humidity, moisture, or vapor' are inapplicable.”
In Citation Insurance Co. v. Broan-NuTone, Guzman granted summary judgment in a products-liability case after finding the plaintiff lacked admissible evidence of a design or manufacturing defect.
“Plaintiff lacks admissible evidence to show either a design defect or a manufacturing defect, and even if its late-disclosed evidence was admissible, it is insufficient.”
Procedural preferences
In Wea v. Carvajal, she dismissed a landlord’s suit concerning state housing-court proceedings for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and did not reach the defendants’ merits arguments.
“When a federal court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case, it is precluded from rendering any judgments on the merits of the case.”
In Social Security suits she requires the claimant to have exhausted administrative remedies and obtained a 'final decision' under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) before judicial review; absent a waiver of exhaustion, the proper vehicle for dismissal is Rule 12(b)(6) because the court lacks the statutory power to grant relief (Smith v. Berryhill).
“without any such waiver the proper vehicle for dismissal is Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the court lacks the statutory power to grant relief.”
She treats reconsideration as a narrow remedy rather than a second round of briefing. A party must identify new evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, clear legal error, or manifest injustice; repeating arguments already considered does not suffice.
“A motion for reconsideration is not an occasion for parties to ‘rehash arguments previously rejected or to raise ones that’ could or should have been made before a judgment was issued.”
In Jean-Paul, Guzman found good cause for late service after a self-represented plaintiff made an initial effort and reasonably believed from communications with the defendant that service was complete. She still required a clearer amended pleading.
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause under Rule 4(j).”
Cautions
In a land-use dispute, Guzman granted summary judgment on the developers' substantive due process claims. She found the alleged permit delays and disputed gravel-removal fee did not shock the conscience, and she dismissed the remaining state-law claim without prejudice.
“the claim is 'too typical of the run of the mill dispute between a developer and a town planning agency,' and thus does not rise to the level of a due process violation.”
In Roman v. Lahey, she dismissed medical-negligence claims after denying the plaintiff’s third and fourth requests to extend the expert-disclosure deadline, leaving him unable to prove the medical standard of care.
“the Court denied Plaintiff's third and fourth emergency motions for extension of time to disclose an expert, and noted plaintiff would be barred from disclosing an expert in this case.”
In Morin v. Quinsigamond Community College, she denied a mandatory preliminary injunction seeking a grade change to permit a nursing exam because delayed professional progress and financial losses did not establish irreparable harm.
“Because a mandatory preliminary injunction alters rather than preserves the status quo, it ‘normally should be granted only in those circumstances when the exigencies of the situation demand such relief.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“1. The motion to dismiss is ALLOWED. 2. The remaining motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. 3. The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion for to dismiss is GRANTED as to all claims.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Defendants' motion to for summary judgment, [ECF No. 23], was GRANTED as to all counts, [ECF No. 30].”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 48] is DENIED as to Count I (Breach of Contract) and GRANTED as to Count III (Bad Faith).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 36] as to Counts I, III, and IV and dismisses Count II without prejudice.”
“Scopic's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 64] is GRANTED on all counts in accordance with this memorandum of decision”
“Scopic's Motion to Strike Paragraphs 3-4 and 11-16 of the Affidavit of Johannes Ellmeier [ECF No. 79] is DENIED”
“Because summary judgment is being granted as to all claims, the Court need not rule on the motion and will be denied as moot. ... Scopic's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Glenn Ricciardelli [ECF No. 68] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Edv's request is therefore denied without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated above, SHI's motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 31], is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Counts II-V of the complaint are hereby DISMISSED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [ECF No. 224] is DENIED.”
“the Court ... DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot, and REMANDS with directions to remit monies to the Plaintiff in the amount of $8010.00 for withheld disability benefits, $100.00 in benefits erroneously repaid, accrued interest on withheld monies, and $300.00 in costs”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint, sua sponte GRANTS summary judgment to Plaintiff, DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot, and REMANDS”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 200.5 days (N = 6).
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 | 2 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 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 Guzman: 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 Guzman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Guzman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Guzman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace