Ellen Lipton Hollander

How Judge Hollander rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Position
district
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2010-12-28
Education
Goucher College, B.A. (1971); Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. (1974)
Signed orders read
19

How Judge Hollander decides

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

What persuades

In Courthouse News Service, Hollander allowed limited expedited discovery where the defendants relied on statistical conclusions but withheld the underlying data from the opposing party.

“CNS is entitled to review the Data that underlies the defendants’ position.”

Procedural preferences

In Jones, Hollander treated new claims embedded in summary-judgment papers as proposed amendments and denied them when amendment would be futile.

“Where, as here, the proposed amendment to the complaint appears to be a futility, this court has the discretion to deny leave to amend.”

She reserves genuine factual disputes for trial and will not resolve them through either a dismissal motion or summary judgment on an inconclusive record.

“A dispute of material fact is not appropriate for resolution, either at the motion to dismiss stage or on summary judgment.”

Signed rulings

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

Shannon v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
1:11-cv-03689 · 2012-01-31
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Shannon’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 3) and a restraining order (ECF No. 4) to prevent to his transfer from Patuxent Institution to another facility will be denied.”

Temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Denied
Jones v. Graham
1:13-cv-03602 · 2014-05-19
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“the motions for summary judgment, construed as motions to amend the complaint as to these two claims, shall be denied.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied
Motion to appoint counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion for appointment of counsel shall be denied, without prejudice.”

Motion for jury trial (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff has also moved for jury trial. ECF 39. The motion shall be denied as premature, and without prejudice”

Taylor v. University of Maryland
1:15-cv-03113 · 2015-10-16
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion for leave to amend will be denied.”

Motion for copy work (plaintiff) Denied

“Taylor’s broadly stated motion for copy work will be denied because it fails to particularize a need for specific documents.”

Mua v. State of Maryland
1:16-cv-01435 · 2016-05-19
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Therefore, I shall deny the Motion (ECF 2).”

Mua v. State of Maryland
1:16-cv-01435 · 2017-02-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“I shall grant the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 10) filed by CCIE and Marsden & Seledee.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“I shall also grant the State’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 17).”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“I shall grant the Motion to Strike filed by CCIE and Marsden & Seledee (ECF 28).”

Motion for sanctions and prefiling injunction (defendant) Denied

“I shall deny the motion for sanctions and for the pre-filing injunction (ECF 25), filed by CCIE and Marsden & Seledee.”

Al-Sabah v. Agbodjogbe
1:17-cv-00730 · 2017-10-05
Motion to modify scheduling order (defendant) Granted in part

“I shall grant the Motion (ECF 67) in part and deny it in part.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“I shall deny plaintiff‟s Motion to Strike. ECF 71.”

Smith Derichelieu v. Johns Hopkins University
1:21-cv-01953 · 2021-12-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“I shall construe the Motion as a motion to dismiss and grant it as to plaintiff’s Title VII claim, which is contained in Count I, and plaintiff’s FEPA claim, which is Count II. But, I shall deny the Motion as to plaintiff’s § 1981 claim”

Norris v. PNC Bank, N.A.
1:20-cv-03315 · 2022-06-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“I shall grant the summary judgment motions in part and deny them in part.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part
Foreman v. West
1:19-cv-01534 · 2020-12-10
Motion to dismiss or summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“I shall grant the Motion as to the federal claim in Count II. And, I shall remand Count I and the State claim in Count II to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.”

7-Eleven #22360 v. United States
1:21-cv-00057 · 2021-07-01
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“In light of the foregoing, the Motion is granted.”

Lee v. Meyers
1:21-cv-01589 · 2021-10-14
Motion for temporary restraining order and emergency hearing (plaintiff) Denied

“I will deny the Motion, without prejudice, insofar as it requests a TRO and an emergency hearing.”

Courthouse News Service v. Harris
1:22-cv-00548 · 2022-08-18
Motion for expedited discovery (plaintiff) Granted

“I am persuaded that CNS has met its burden and demonstrated adequate justification for limited expedited discovery. For the reasons set forth above, I shall grant the Motion.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 41 days (N = 5).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 238 days (N = 1).

The sampled matters include prisoner civil rights, securities, real property, contract litigation, and newly filed civil and criminal matters without a coded nature of suit. Five cases were terminated and five remained pending at the time of review.

Draft for Judge Hollander with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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