David T. Schultz
How Judge Schultz rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schultz
David T. Schultz became a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota in February 2017 and sits in Minneapolis. He previously spent eleven years as a litigation partner at Maslon LLP and taught trial advocacy and legal writing.
Judge Schultz's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Schultz, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Chambers does not require courtesy copies of motion papers.
“Courtesy Copies of motion-related papers are not required.”
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).
- Amended Administrative Order: Procedures for Storage and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- General Order No. 1: Filing Sealed Documents with Highly Sensitive Information ↗
- General Order No. 2: Removing Sealed Documents with Highly Sensitive Information from CM/ECF ↗
- Administrative Order: Encryption of Electronic Materials and Cloud Storage Links ↗
How Judge Schultz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Lazzaro, he recommended denying suppression under the independent-source doctrine even though the initial search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, because a later warrant supplied an independent lawful source.
“Judge Schultz agreed that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, but recommends denying Lazzaro's motion to suppress under the independent-source doctrine.”
In United States v. Lazzaro, he recommended denying a facial vagueness challenge as premature because the defendant had not first established an as-applied challenge under the cited circuit rule.
“As Judge Schultz explained in the R&R, this facial challenge is also premature, as a defendant must prevail on an as-applied challenge before raising a facial challenge.”
In a False Claims Act discovery dispute, Schultz required specific evidence of a shared legal strategy before applying the common-interest privilege. He found that telling an FBI agent of retained counsel did not establish that relationship before the relator’s formal disclosure to the government.
“Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that the common interest privilege applied to otherwise privileged material before September 20, 2013.”
In expert discovery, Schultz excused a prompt motion filed after a deposition exposed refusals to answer. He ordered further production and deposition only as to the expert’s qualifications and expertise, subject to the pending decision on whether to exclude the expert.
“The Court will grant Federal’s motion to compel production of documents to the extent they directly relate to Hilliard’s qualifications and expertise.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion to suppress [ECF No. 127] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Five, Six, and Seven as unconstitutionally vague [ECF No. 132] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 94] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Docket No. 95] is DENIED.”
“The Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
In multidistrict product-liability litigation, Schultz recommended dismissing four actions with prejudice after the plaintiffs failed to serve required fact sheets despite multiple opportunities, a show-cause order, and a final hearing. The recommendation arose from the court's case-management process rather than a party motion.
Schultz recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a discovery order; Ericksen adopted the unopposed recommendation. No party motion was decided.
Schultz recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute; Ericksen adopted the unopposed recommendation. No party motion was decided.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20) be GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Compel Withheld Materials and Testimony [Dkt. No. 330] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 337] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:”
“The IRS’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 21] be DENIED AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Schultz-assigned dockets confirmed from the docket records.
- He sits in two roles. As a referral magistrate he handles pretrial matters in cases captioned under an Article III district judge.
- By the parties' consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) he is the final decision-maker, and a large share of that consent work is the District of Minnesota's Social Security appeals docket, where he routinely decides the claimant's and the Commissioner's cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record.
- He also takes consent civil matters in other areas, insurance (Ramirez v. State Farm, a removed auto case that the parties consented to him and then resolved by dismissal in 2020), a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action (Borup v. The CJS Solutions Group, consent, heavily litigated through discovery before terminating in 2022), motor-vehicle and product-liability diversity suits, and employment matters, alongside criminal duty assignments.
- The reach of his Social Security docket is the most distinctive feature of his caseload.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Minnesota, not for Judge Schultz: 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 | 2,681 | 8.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,499 | 5.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 525 | 13.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 39.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,681 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,636 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,579 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,701 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,737 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 3,259 | 14.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,151 | 21.6 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 Schultz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schultz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schultz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace