Paul G. Levenson

How Judge Levenson rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Position
magistrate
Appointed by
Judges of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Commissioned
2022-05-27
Education
Harvard College, B.A., 1979; Harvard Law School, J.D., 1984
Signed orders read
11

How Judge Levenson decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

At class certification, he separates remedies the proposed representative has standing to pursue from remedies that may require a different class representative.

“The proposed class should be certified as to Plaintiff's claims for retrospective relief. Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to certify a class pursuing prospective injunctive relief, Mr. Waldner lacks standing to pursue such a claim.”

At discovery, he favors a narrower factual response when a broad request depends on unresolved legal theories and the existence of responsive documents is uncertain.

“Rather than decide whether data that may not exist would theoretically be relevant, depending on the validity of one or more legal theories that have not yet been articulated, I will order Defendants to respond to RFP N by confirming whether or not they have any responsive documents.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Kologik Capital, LLC v. In Force Technology, LLC
1:18-cv-11168-GAO · 2023-03-13
Motion to take deposition (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth above, I GRANT in part the Motion to Take Third Deposition Pursuant to June 21, 2022 Order (Docket No. 260).”

Waldner v. Natixis Investment Managers, L.P.
1:21-cv-10273-LTS · 2023-03-24
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 50) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Waldner v. Natixis Investment Managers, L.P.
1:21-cv-10273-LTS · 2024-08-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“I RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 138], except as to Defendants' arguments with respect to Oakmark International Fund and with respect to the alleged breach of the duty of loyalty in connection with Delafield Fund.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“I RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Opinions and Exhibits of Plaintiff's Expert Donald C. Stone [Docket No. 153].”

Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“I RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Brian C. Becker, PhD [Docket No. 155].”

Bickham v. Reprosource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc.
1:21-cv-11879-GAO · 2024-07-17
Motion for final approval (plaintiff) Granted

“I recommend that the Court grant Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement [Docket No. 79]”

Motion for attorneys fees (plaintiff) Granted

“and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Award [Docket No. 73].”

Liang v. Allebest
1:23-cv-11803-PGL · 2023-09-08

Levenson recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after screening the complaint. No party motion was before him, so the decision is retained for reasoning but excluded from motion statistics.

Quinn-Goncalves v. ICE Field Office
1:24-cv-10655-PGL · 2024-06-24

After the plaintiff did not respond to an order to show cause, Levenson recommended dismissal without prejudice. Because the recommendation did not resolve a party motion, it is excluded from motion statistics.

Koehn v. Boncher
1:24-cv-10846-PGL · 2024-05-28

Levenson recommended dismissal without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to cure deficiencies identified in a screening order. No party motion was decided, so the recommendation is excluded from motion statistics.

Speight v. Kaelblein
1:24-cv-12363-PBS · 2025-05-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“I RECOMMEND that the Court GRANT Michael and Nancy Kaelblein's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 70)”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“and Attorney Stephan's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 81) and that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without prejudice.”

Default judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“I further RECOMMEND that the Court DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to Amanda Kaelblein (Docket No. 84)”

Default judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, Motion to Compel, and Request for Hearing on Damages (Docket No. 97)”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Motion for status conference (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“and Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference (Docket No. 100).”

Iatric Systems, Inc. v. Hamilton Health Sciences Corp.
1:24-cv-13116-NMG · 2025-07-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the forgoing reasons, I RECOMMEND that Defendant's partial motion to dismiss (Docket No. 16) be ALLOWED and that Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint be dismissed”

Revvity, Inc. v. Hauser
1:25-cv-11657-ADB · 2025-11-26
Motion to impound (plaintiff) Denied

“For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.”

In re MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL · 2026-05-08
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is DENIED with respect to information about VCEs' own cybersecurity measures, and ALLOWED with respect to requiring Defendants to respond, to the extent described supra, to RFP N.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 571 days (N = 9).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 25 days (N = 11).

The nine terminated civil matters examined include Social Security, habeas, personal-injury, real-property, contract, insurance, and copyright disputes. Several settled or ended without a contested merits ruling; one consent real-property docket supplied the usable motion timeline.

Draft for Judge Levenson with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Levenson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Levenson's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace