Laura Margarete Provinzino
How Judge Provinzino rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Provinzino
Laura Margarete Provinzino is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Provinzino received a commission on September 16, 2024.
Judge Provinzino's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Provinzino, 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.
- Judge Laura M. Provinzino's Practice Pointers ↗
- Sample Trial Notice - Civil ↗
- Sample Trial Notice - Criminal ↗
Key rules
Motions
File the motion without first requesting a hearing date; the court sets one after briefing.
“the moving party does not need to contact Judge Provinzino’s chambers for a hearing date. In addition, the moving party does not need to file a Notice of Hearing with its motion; the Court will issue a Notice of Hearing after the hearing date has been set.”
Motions
Request any word limit increase at least three court days before filing the brief.
“Such requests must be filed at least three court days in advance of the filing of the subject brief”
Motions
Get court permission before moving for summary judgment prior to discovery's close.
“Parties may not file a motion for summary judgment before the close of discovery unless they have sought and received permission from the Court.”
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 Provinzino decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Anthony B. v. Bisignano, she reviewed an unobjected-to magistrate recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it, affirming the denial of benefits.
“No objections have been filed to the R&R in the time period permitted, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error. ... Finding no clear error, ... IT IS ORDERED THAT: The R&R (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED;”
In Randall v. GreatBanc Trust, Provinzino preliminarily approved an ERISA class settlement after considering the parties' positions, litigation risks, negotiation process, and proposed class notice. She set a final fairness hearing.
“Upon preliminary review, the Court finds the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant providing notice of the Settlement to class members. ... the Court has considered the relative merits of the parties' positions; the costs, risks, and delay associated with continued litigation; the good-faith and arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel facilitated by an independent, professional mediator skilled in ERISA litigation”
In Doward v. City of Kettle River, she treated claims the unrepresented plaintiff did not address in the summary-judgment response as forfeited, and granted judgment after also resolving the remaining claim on the record.
“the Court must conclude that she has forfeited each of Counts 2 through 7 against all Defendants and all her claims against Sonsalla”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED;”
“Anthony B.'s Request for Reversal or Remand (ECF No. 11) is DENIED;”
“the Court hereby GRANTS the motion, enters a Preliminary Approval Order, and ORDERS as follows:”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Reichel's Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.”
“The Amended Petition (ECF No. 13) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Data Axle's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED. All claims against Defendant Douglas Ferrara are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Dusek's petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot.”
“The Motion for Expedited Review and Consideration (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as moot”
“Nelson's Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal (ECF No. 265) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“SPPD's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 90) is GRANTED; ... Moore's Section 1983 claim against SPPD is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Moore's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 75, 79, and 87) is DENIED”
“Grandson's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (ECF No. 80) is GRANTED. Grandson is awarded $107,710.00 in attorneys' fees and $1,334.05 in costs.”
“Defendant Hennepin County's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED; and ... Plaintiff Grant Anthony Judish's claims against Defendant Hennepin County only (ECF No. 1) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as to the Hancock Declaration and denied as to the West Declaration.”
“Defendants' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Expert Declaration (ECF No. 34) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 35 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 12 days (N = 6).
- The bounded January 2025 filing sample includes civil-rights, insurance, trade-secret, medical, Social Security, immigration, and habeas matters.
- Four more January 2026 files were selected for recent signed rulings, and the earlier Smith file remains.
- Seven observed files have termination dates and twelve lack one in the returned case metadata; some of those twelve have later docket activity or a judgment, so they are not all confirmed pending.
- The recent cohort and purposive additions do not describe the full docket mix.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 4 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 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 Provinzino: 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 Provinzino with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Provinzino, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Provinzino's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace