Thomas Lamson Ludington
How Judge Ludington rules, drawn from 44 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ludington
Thomas Lamson Ludington is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President George W. Bush, he received his commission on June 12, 2006. The court announced an official one-year leave from judicial duties effective September 1, 2026, following a voluntary leave that began in February; Judge Michael C. Martin is assigned Bay City civil matters during the leave.
Judge Ludington's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ludington, 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.
Key rules
Motions
Parties seeking an extension should explain with specificity the unanticipated or unforeseen circumstances necessitating the extension and should set forth a timetable for the completion of the tasks for which the extension is sought.
“Parties seeking an extension should explain with specificity the unanticipated or unforeseen circumstances necessitating the extension and should set forth a timetable for the completion of the tasks for which the extension is sought.”
Discovery
Discovery Extensions Parties may stipulate to a short extension of discovery, so long as the extension does not necessitate extension of other case management dates.
“Discovery Extensions Parties may stipulate to a short extension of discovery, so long as the extension does not necessitate extension of other case management dates.”
Trial
In jury cases proposed voir dire and proposed joint jury instructions shall be submitted to chambers before the close of business one week before the Final Pretrial Conference.
“In jury cases proposed voir dire and proposed joint jury instructions shall be submitted to chambers before the close of business one week before the Final Pretrial Conference.”
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 Ludington decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Partner Assessment, Ludington denied a venue transfer in a trade secret dispute after finding that the alleged misappropriation occurred in Michigan and that the defendant had not shown the chosen forum was unduly burdensome.
“Here, the operative facts of the case, the misappropriation of trade secrets, occurred within the State of Michigan, not California.”
Procedural preferences
In Good, Ludington struck a second summary judgment motion filed after remand because the defendants had not sought the leave required by the local rule. He expressly allowed them to seek leave to file another.
“Defendants filed another motion for summary judgment without seeking or obtaining leave from this Court.”
In Taylor, Ludington allowed an incarcerated plaintiff to file a late response to summary judgment. His excusable neglect analysis gave weight to the fact that the plaintiff had court-appointed counsel and little control over counsel’s filing time.
“Plaintiff was—and still is—incarcerated, such that he had little to no ‘reasonable control’ over the timeliness of his Counsel’s filing.”
Cautions
In Smolinski, Ludington granted summary judgment on a jail medical-care claim after finding no evidence that the medical staff knew the plaintiff lacked wound dressings. He also found no expert or other evidence linking their conduct to the later amputation.
“Plaintiff has not identified an expert or presented a report demonstrating that it was the Defendants’ conduct that caused his leg amputation.”
Dismissed a federal prisoner’s habeas petition without prejudice when the petitioner filed before exhausting administrative remedies.
“because Petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his Petition, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 74, is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 76, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 65, is GRANTED. Further, it is ORDERED that the Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 30, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant Brighthouse's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave, ECF No. 60, is GRANTED.”
“It is ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED. Further, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No, 118, is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 117, is hereby STRUCK for violating Local Rule 7.1(b)(2).”
“It is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, ECF No. 77, is DENIED.”
“It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1-1, is REMANDED to the Bay County Circuit Court.”
“It is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 25, is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 22, is DENIED.”
“It is ORDERED that Defendant Vernell Phipps' Motion to Recuse, ECF No. 125, is DENIED.”
“It is ORDERED that Defendant Russell's Motion to Stay, ECF No. 69, is GRANTED. Further, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is STAYED pending resolution of Defendant's appeal.”
“It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, ECF No. 72, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and may be re-filed once the stay in the above-captioned case has been lifted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 56 days (N = 15).
The reviewed matters include Rehabilitation Act, products-liability, prisoner civil-rights, insurance, and criminal cases. This is a descriptive sample, not a complete caseload count.
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 | 10 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 10 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 11 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 24 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 30 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 24 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 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 Ludington: 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 Ludington with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ludington, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ludington's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace