Susan K. Gauvey
How Judge Gauvey rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gauvey
Susan K. Gauvey joined the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland as a magistrate judge in 1996. Before her judicial service, she worked at the Legal Aid Bureau, the Maryland Attorney General's Office, and Venable. She retired from full-time service in 2014 and later served on recall.
Judge Gauvey's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Gauvey'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 Gauvey decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a reviewed benefits case, Gauvey denied both summary-judgment motions and remanded because the administrative law judge still needed to apply the governing standards to alleged loans and countable income.
“Therefore, this Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this letter order.”
Procedural preferences
On a diversity fraud claim she denies a defendant's summary-judgment motion where factual disputes remain and denies a plaintiff's post-discovery motion for leave to amend as futile and prejudicial.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the pleading is DENIED.”
In Webster v. ACB Receivables Management, she excluded a blank form debt-collection letter at summary judgment because the defendant had not authenticated it.
“Given that Defendant has failed to properly authenticate the blank form dunning letter, the Court concludes that it is inadmissible.”
She applies Rule 11 where a pleading's own facts foreclose personal liability under settled agency law, emphasizing that an individual agent should not be kept in a case merely in case a different theory later emerges.
“It is objectively unreasonable for a complaint to be filed (and maintained) against a known agent (rather than her principal) on the possibility that that agent might have been acting outside the scope of her authority, might have misrepresented her authority or that the employer might repudiate her authority, making her liable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, this Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this letter order.”
“this Court VACATES the decision of the Commissioner, DENIES plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and DENIES defendant's motion for summary judgment and REMANDS for further consideration in light of this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the pleading is DENIED.”
“the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient on its face... even though the new allegations arises from the same facts, defendant would be prejudiced by the amendment... in the interest of justice, plaintiff's motion is denied.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13), DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14-1), and REMANDS this case for further proceedings.”
“For reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS both the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) and the Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 38).”
“For reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part both the Motion for Order (ECF No. 34-2) and the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 35).”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the first, second, and third counts but DENIES her motion as to the fourth count.”
“The Court DENIES Defendant’s motions for summary judgment as to the first, second, and third counts, but GRANTS the same as to the fourth count.”
“The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to extend fact discovery for a limited purpose (ECF No. 258) is GRANTED and intervenor Toyota’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 253) is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Expunge is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to expunge the arrest and charge in 07-mj-1218-SKG from the public record.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 263 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 133 days (N = 2).
- Her consent docket under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) included Social Security review, fraud and other diversity tort and product-liability suits, motor-vehicle personal injury, employment discrimination, a Federal Tort Claims Act matter, and a wage-and-hour collective action, alongside petty-offense assignments.
- Several sampled personal-injury cases ended within months, while the reviewed contested rulings centered on Social Security appeals, fraud, wage-and-hour claims, and settlement approval.
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 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 Gauvey: 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 Gauvey with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gauvey, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gauvey's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace