James Kelleher Bredar
How Judge Bredar rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bredar
James Kelleher Bredar is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bredar received a commission on December 17, 2010. Judge Bredar assumed senior status on April 30, 2024.
Judge Bredar's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bredar'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 Bredar decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Century Metal, Bredar set aside defaults where delay had caused no particular prejudice and a decision on the merits better served justice.
“In summary, the Court concludes it would be inappropriate to leave in place the entries of default and it would be equally inappropriate to enter default judgments against MWI and Worldwide.”
Procedural preferences
In Brown, Bredar paired dismissal with another opportunity to plead where the plaintiff was self-represented and earlier allegations suggested a potentially curable claim.
“In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and the more detailed allegations contained in Plaintiff’s original complaint, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.”
He applies the strong presumption of public access to sealing requests, ordinarily requiring the motion, legal argument, and proposed order themselves to remain public and any redactions to be narrowly tailored.
“That high bar means it is almost never appropriate to seal a motion to seal, the legal arguments made in support, or the proposed order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“CBX’s arguments have been considered and its motion to reconsider will be denied.”
“Defendant’s motion will be granted and Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.”
“CBX has failed to show that it is entitled to partial summary judgment and its motion will be denied.”
“Accordingly, GCC’s motion, treated alternatively as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, will be denied.”
“the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) will be granted without prejudice.”
“The Commissioner’s Motion for Transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia will be denied as moot.”
“his Emergency Motion for Evidentiary Hearing will be DENIED.”
“Belzner’s Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No. 407) is DENIED.”
“an order shall issue GRANTING Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 15) and GRANTING Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint”
“Defendants’ motion to set aside the entries of default (ECF No. 188) IS GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 184) IS DENIED.”
“the motion (ECF No. 14) for reconsideration of the Court’s June 24, 2013, order is GRANTED to the extent the Court has now considered Plaintiff’s reply brief and supporting materials.”
“Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED IN PART and this Preliminary Injunction is ENTERED.”
“The motion for preliminary injunction is ripe (ECF Nos. 173, 174, 179, and 182) and involves no disputes of fact. It will be denied.”
“Defendants’ motion for a protective order is GRANTED and that the notice issued by Plaintiffs under Rule 30(b)(6) is QUASHED.”
“Johnson’s Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No. 303) is DENIED.”
“the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, on both grounds proffered by the Defendants.”
“a separate order shall be entered granting defendant Lambert’s motion for summary judgment”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 459 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 121 days (N = 10).
The twelve sampled matters include habeas, prisoner civil rights, administrative review, personal-property damage, ERISA, civil racketeering, False Claims Act litigation, trade secrets, personal injury, and newly filed matters without a coded nature of suit. Seven were terminated and five remained pending at the time of review.
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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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 Bredar: 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 Bredar with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bredar, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bredar's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace