Noelle C. Collins
How Judge Collins rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Collins
Noelle C. Collins is a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Missouri and has served as chief magistrate judge since December 2025. She joined the court in December 2013 after serving as an Assistant United States Attorney. She earned her law degree from the University of Illinois in 2001.
Judge Collins's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Collins, 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
Discovery
Before filing a motion to compel, counsel must contact chambers together for an informal resolution after meeting and conferring.
“If the parties have met and conferred in accordance with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and still anticipate the filing of a motion to compel, the parties shall together contact chambers to seek an informal resolution prior to filing a motion.”
Discovery
Before a discovery motion, actually speak with opposing counsel in person or by phone.
“Before filing any such motion, the moving party must confer by actually speaking with opposing counsel in person or by telephone.”
Conferences
Request a Zoom Rule 16 conference by motion at least one week in advance.
“Any participant who would prefer that the conference be held by Zoom instead of in person may file a motion requesting a Zoom conference no later than a week in advance.”
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).
How Judge Collins decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Hagler, Magistrate Judge Collins rejected a staleness challenge to search warrants and recommended denying suppression. The affidavits described ongoing possession of weapons, drugs, and explosives; under those circumstances, the elapsed time had not defeated probable cause.
“the Howell search warrants did not grow stale by March 26, 2015 when they were served because the affidavits established that defendant faced criminal liability under Title 18, United States, Section 922. Thus, there was a reasonable probability that there were narcotics and firearms in defendant’s residences when the Howell warrants were issued.”
In Redus v. Birner STL LLC, a signed electronic arbitration agreement and a sworn description of the onboarding process established assent. The employee offered no specific evidence challenging his signature or notice, so the court compelled arbitration of his wage claims. A party disputing formation should identify concrete contrary evidence.
“The Court finds that Birner has submitted sufficient unrebutted evidence of formation.”
Procedural preferences
In Dill v. Vaccaro & Sons Produce, Inc., Collins barred Dr. Gornet from giving causation opinions because he had not been disclosed as an expert with a report by the deadline, while permitting testimony about facts learned during treatment.
“Upon review of the briefings, the Court will prohibit the testimony of Dr. Gornet as to causation but will permit his testimony of as to facts identified during his treatment of Plaintiff.”
Cautions
In United States v. Anderson, Collins recommended suppressing evidence from a pat-down and statements made after arrest before Miranda warnings while denying the rest of the suppression requests; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Charles Lee Anderson’s motions to suppress [58 and 59] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated in Judge Collins’ report and recommendation.”
In Noel M. v. Bisignano, Collins remanded an SSI denial because the administrative law judge did not adequately evaluate migraine symptoms or their potential effect on workplace attendance.
“The ALJ’s failure to do so is a sufficient basis for remand.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Hagler’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #32) be denied.”
“Upon review of the briefings, the Court will prohibit the testimony of Dr. Gornet as to causation but will permit his testimony of as to facts identified during his treatment of Plaintiff.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Charles Lee Anderson’s motions to suppress [58 and 59] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated in Judge Collins’ report and recommendation.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Suppress Evidence and for Franks Hearing [27] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant by Kentrell Diggs’s Motion to Sever is DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 57]”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Sever, Doc. [83], is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Disclosure of Brady/Giglio Information and Motion for Early Production of Jencks Materials, Doc. [84], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Doc. [116] at 18-23.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Indictment, or in the Alternative, to Obtain a Bill of Particulars, Doc. [85], is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ various motions to dismiss and for a bill of particulars and their motions to sever defendants [67, 74, 77, 86] are denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Officer Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts V, VII, and IX) and DENIED in part as moot as to Plaintiff’s claims under state law (Counts VI, VIII, and X).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Jefferson County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chosich’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 56) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence (ECF No. 66) be DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. This proceeding is STAYED pending arbitration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 309 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 334 days (N = 3).
- Not systematically enumerated.
- The 10 Collins-assigned dockets surfaced skew toward Social-Security appeals (Henson, Steibel, Medley, Collins v. Colvin) and consent civil matters (PNC Bank negotiable-instrument, Nekouee ADA, EJS insurance, Simon other-statutory, S.W. civil-rights education), consistent with a magistrate judge's consent-and-SS docket.
- The consent civil cases observed all resolved by settlement rather than a merits ruling.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Eastern District of Missouri, not for Judge Collins: 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 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 502 | 4.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,031 | 7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 31.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,525 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,323 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,466 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,424 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,950 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,913 | 2.2 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 Collins with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Collins, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Collins's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace