Erin E.V. Aslan
How Judge Aslan rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Aslan
Erin E.V. Aslan joined the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland as a magistrate judge in December 2023. Before her appointment, she worked in several Justice Department divisions and offices, including the Civil Rights Division and Office of the Inspector General, and clerked for Judge Harold Baer Jr. in the Southern District of New York.
Judge Aslan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Aslan'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 Aslan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Crista K. v. Bisignano, Aslan approved $18,609 in contingent attorney fees after finding the effective rate reasonable in light of the successful result and lack of delay; she required reimbursement of the earlier $5,000 EAJA fee.
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 23) is granted. This Court awards $18,609.00 in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel and directs him to reimburse Plaintiff the $5,000.00 in funds he previously received pursuant to the EAJA.”
In Crista K. v. Colvin, sitting by consent, Aslan reversed and remanded the denial of disability benefits because the ALJ did not assess the claimant’s work functions separately and had conflated symptom evaluation with the residual functional capacity analysis.
“the Commissioner's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
Procedural preferences
In two related negligence suits, Aslan allowed a late-disclosed expert to testify after finding that delayed document production justified the timing and that remaining discovery could cure any surprise.
“Importantly, any surprise that may exist can be cured.”
In a consent Social Security appeal, Aslan declined to revisit an affirmed benefits decision when the claimant repeated a disagreement with the court’s analysis and showed no intervening controlling law.
“At bottom, Plaintiff ‘simply disagrees with my analysis of her argument,’ which does not support reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).”
Cautions
In Williams v. Walmart Inc., she narrowed a proposed subpoena for all calls to a medical office because it could expose sensitive health information about nonparties.
“Mr. Williams’ request for ‘all incoming and outgoing calls’ is overbroad and calls for the production of potentially sensitive health-care related information of non-parties.”
In Lugo v. Driscoll, she denied the plaintiff's EAJA fee motion because the plaintiff had secured neither a judgment on the merits nor a court-ordered consent decree and therefore was not a prevailing party.
“because Ms. Lugo has not 'secure[d] a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree,' she is not a prevailing party and thus not entitled to an award of fees and other expenses... it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Commissioner's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED. Judgment in the amount of $240,000 is granted in favor of Erie and against WAWGD.”
“because Ms. Lugo has not 'secure[d] a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree,' she is not a prevailing party and thus not entitled to an award of fees and other expenses... it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 23) is granted. This Court awards $18,609.00 in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel and directs him to reimburse Plaintiff the $5,000.00 in funds he previously received pursuant to the EAJA.”
“Mr. Williams’ motion for the issuance of third-party subpoenas (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Ms. Vachon’s motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem (ECF No. 62) is DENIED without prejudice to renew;”
“Mr. Scott’s emergency motion to continue the preliminary injunction hearing (ECF No. 31) is DENIED”
“For the foregoing reasons, McDonogh’s motions are denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”
“motion to bifurcate (ECF No. 90) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Survivor A’s request that the July 28, 2026 deposition be reopened is GRANTED;”
“The School Board’s request for a forensic examination of Survivor A’s cellular telephone is DENIED;”
“The School Board’s request to reopen Survivor A’s deposition is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Survivor A’s request for an additional 35 deposition hours is GRANTED;”
“Survivor A’s request for an extension of the deadlines set forth in the operative scheduling order (ECF No. 63) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 374 days (N = 2).
- By consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) she handles a general civil mix, Social Security review appeals, insurance subrogation/contract, APA challenges, personal injury, and labor/ERISA collection, and her fresh 2026 assignment list (contract, diversity PI, Section 1983, an insurance subrogation, an ERISA painters'-fund case) reflects the same breadth, alongside criminal-duty magistrate matters.
- Recently appointed (sworn 2023-12-04); no terminated non-Social-Security merits docket sampled for duration yet.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 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 Maryland, not for Judge Aslan: 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 Aslan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Aslan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Aslan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace