Paul G. Levenson
How Judge Levenson rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Levenson
Paul G. Levenson has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Massachusetts since May 2022 and as Chief Magistrate Judge since 2026. He graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Before joining the bench, he served as regional director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Boston office.
Judge Levenson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Levenson, 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 Leave to File Under Seal and Stipulated Protective Orders ↗
- Standing Order - Motions for Default Judgement ↗
- Sample Mediation Order ↗
Key rules
Motions
Reply briefs have a 12-page maximum and are due seven days after opposition; a surreply needs a motion for leave with the proposed filing attached.
“Yes, Reply Briefs: 12 pages maximum, 7 days after opposition. Surreply: I will entertain a motion for leave to file, which should attach the proposed submission.”
Conferences
Parties generally must attend mediation.
“I generally require the parties to be present for mediation.”
Conferences
A joint request to postpone an interim status conference should include a status report and a representation that all parties agree to exclude time until the next conference.
“I will generally postpone/cancel an interim status conference at the parties' joint request, provided the parties submit a joint status report with a clear update on the progress of the case, and planned next steps, in the matter. Any request to postpone/cancel MUST include a representation that all parties agree to exclude time until the next conference.”
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 Levenson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Waldner v. Natixis Investment Managers, Levenson recommended class certification for retrospective relief but found the proposed representative lacked standing to pursue prospective injunctive relief.
“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.”
In the MOVEit data-breach litigation, Levenson limited a discovery request to requiring the defendants to confirm whether responsive documents existed before deciding broader relevance questions.
“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.”
Cautions
In an MDL discovery dispute over sensitive medical and mental-health records, Levenson denied a blanket protective order but restricted use of the records to the litigation and directed in camera review if specific therapist-patient privilege claims were made. Sensitive subject matter alone did not end discovery; a focused privilege claim could still be heard.
“Bellwether Plaintiffs are ORDERED to respond to OSF’s demand as to Rehm’s provider records, subject to an agreement that Bellwether Defendants will use such information only for the purposes of this litigation;”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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).”
“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.”
“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.”
“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].”
“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].”
“I recommend that the Court grant Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement [Docket No. 79]”
“and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Award [Docket No. 73].”
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.
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.
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.
“I RECOMMEND that the Court GRANT Michael and Nancy Kaelblein's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 70)”
“and Attorney Stephan's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 81) and that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without prejudice.”
“I further RECOMMEND that the Court DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to Amanda Kaelblein (Docket No. 84)”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, Motion to Compel, and Request for Hearing on Damages (Docket No. 97)”
“and Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference (Docket No. 100).”
“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”
“For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.”
“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.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Albonico’s motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and to approve of his choice of lead counsel is ALLOWED.”
“Orrell’s motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and to approve of his choice of lead counsel is DENIED.”
“Bustamante’s motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and to approve of his choice of lead counsel is DENIED.”
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.
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 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 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 United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Levenson: 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 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