Ellen Lipton Hollander
How Judge Hollander rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hollander
Ellen Lipton Hollander is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Hollander received a commission on December 28, 2010. Judge Hollander assumed senior status on January 4, 2022.
Judge Hollander's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hollander's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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).
- Order 2026-05: Redacted Filings in FRCP 5.2(c) Cases ↗
- Order 2026-03: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Order 2025-05: Procedures for the Filing of Sealed Documents ↗
- Amended Order 2021-13: Removal Actions ↗
- Amended Order 2022-04: Social Security Cases ↗
- Second Amended Order 2021-02: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order 2020-01: Discovery in Criminal Cases ↗
- Order 2018-07: Amicus Briefs ↗
- Order 2018-08: Service of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment ↗
- Second Amended Order 2025-01: Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus—Alien Detainee ↗
- Order 2024-01: Deficiency Notices ↗
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.”
In Kidwell v. Lee, she denied the remaining officers' dismissal or summary-judgment request in a detainee excessive-force suit because material factual disputes could not be resolved on the written 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’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.”
“the motions for summary judgment, construed as motions to amend the complaint as to these two claims, shall be denied.”
“The motion for appointment of counsel shall be denied, without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff has also moved for jury trial. ECF 39. The motion shall be denied as premature, and without prejudice”
“The motion for leave to amend will be denied.”
“Taylor’s broadly stated motion for copy work will be denied because it fails to particularize a need for specific documents.”
“Therefore, I shall deny the Motion (ECF 2).”
“I shall grant the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 10) filed by CCIE and Marsden & Seledee.”
“I shall also grant the State’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 17).”
“I shall grant the Motion to Strike filed by CCIE and Marsden & Seledee (ECF 28).”
“I shall deny the motion for sanctions and for the pre-filing injunction (ECF 25), filed by CCIE and Marsden & Seledee.”
“I shall grant the Motion (ECF 67) in part and deny it in part.”
“I shall deny plaintiff‟s Motion to Strike. ECF 71.”
“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”
“I shall grant the summary judgment motions in part and deny them 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.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Motion is granted.”
“I will deny the Motion, without prejudice, insofar as it requests a TRO and an emergency hearing.”
“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: 152 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 14 days (N = 9).
The selected cases include prisoner civil rights, securities, real property, contract, product liability, immigration, consumer credit, and return-of-property matters. The newest January–February 2025 cohort has five terminated civil cases and three pending matters; the older cohorts mix terminated and pending cases.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 Maryland, not for Judge Hollander: 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 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 151 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,564 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 457 | 13.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 19 | 33.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,119 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,370 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,053 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,629 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,469 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,709 | 7.9 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 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