Paul David Borman
How Judge Borman rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Borman
Paul D. Borman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Borman received a commission on August 10, 1994. Judge Borman assumed senior status on August 1, 2023.
Judge Borman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Borman, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Practice Guidelines ↗
- Case Management Order ↗
- ERISA Case Management Order ↗
- Order Regarding Exhibits for Compassionate Release ↗
Key rules
Filing
Courtesy Hard Copies are always required to be mailed to chambers.
“Courtesy Hard Copies are always required to be mailed to chambers.”
Discovery
A party who wishes to extend the discovery cutoff date must make a motion or submit a stipulation to the District Judge to request an extension of the cutoff date.
“A party who wishes to extend the discovery cutoff date must make a motion or submit a stipulation to the District Judge to request an extension of the cutoff date.”
Trial
Four copies of a bench book of exhibits are required on the first day of trial.
“Four copies of a bench book of exhibits are required on the first day of trial.”
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 8, 2026).
- Procedures for Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order for Discovery and Inspection and Fixing Motion Cut-Off Date in Criminal Cases ↗
- Pro Se Filings (Revised & Amended) ↗
- Filing a New Civil Case or Civil Initiating Papers Under Seal ↗
How Judge Borman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Javaar G. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Borman adopted an unopposed recommendation to grant the Commissioner's summary-judgment motion and affirm the agency decision.
“GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRMS the findings of the Commissioner.”
Procedural preferences
In Lambeth-Greer, Borman granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion in part, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice.
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, with Plaintiff's federal claims DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff's state law claims DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
In Chambers, the court set aside clerk’s defaults after a prompt motion, finding no prejudice, a potentially meritorious defense, and no deliberate obstruction. The order allowed the defendants to answer the complaint.
“The lack of prejudice to Plaintiffs, as well as the absence of any colorable argument that Defendants’ asserted defenses lack merit or that Defendants intended to thwart judicial proceedings, supports the conclusion that the defaults should be set aside pursuant to Rule 55(c).”
In Comerica Bank, the court denied an early summary-judgment motion without prejudice before fact discovery closed and shortened the discovery schedule instead.
“and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23).”
Struck a motion that omitted the required statement showing counsel sought the opposing party’s concurrence before filing.
“Plaintiff does not state in its Motion that concurrence was sought in the relief requested from the opposing party before filing the motion. Plaintiff therefore filed this Motion in violation of the applicable rules.”
Cautions
In Harwood v. North American Bancard, Borman denied reconsideration of an earlier partial summary-judgment ruling because the defendants raised no new facts or arguments warranting a change.
“For those reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 42.)”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Defendants Erin Byrne, RN's and Kim Farris, PA's, Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 92 and 93) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claim against both Defendants WITH PREJUDICE.”
“GRANTING Defendant Kim Farris, PA's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF NO. 93)”
“DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13)”
“GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRMS the findings of the Commissioner.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, with Plaintiff's federal claims DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff's state law claims DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“(2) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.”
“For those reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 42.)”
“(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.”
“the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Court also DENIES a certificate of appealability.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Cleland’s Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44) is DENIED.”
“ADOPTS the March 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation, and GRANTS the Petition to Enforce Compliance with American Arbitration Association Subpoena”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 5) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED AS MOOT;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters include prisoner civil-rights, employment, Social Security, habeas, criminal, and other civil disputes. Warrant and miscellaneous duty matters are excluded from the merits mix. This is a descriptive sample, not a complete caseload count.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Borman was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2024.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 11 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 19 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 16 | 19 |
| Mar 2022 | 9 | 20 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 17 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 9 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 4 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, not for Judge Borman: 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 | 2,926 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 410 | 2.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,246 | 4.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,252 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 18 | 35.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,926 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,615 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,616 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,541 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,405 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,677 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,237 | 8.6 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 Borman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Borman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Borman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace