Brian S. Meyers
How Judge Meyers decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a discovery dispute he construes Rule 26 relevance broadly and decides production by proportionality: he compelled vessel settlement/earnings records of comparator crew because they bear on a Jones Act fisherman's lost-wages and future-earning-capacity claim, crediting that comparator data 'could potentially be relevant' to the damages calculation once the request was narrowed to about a year of documents already in opposing counsel's possession.
“Settlement records of the vessel on which plaintiff suffered his injury for a discrete period surrounding such injury are relevant to the question of what plaintiff's economic earnings would have been had he not been injured. ... especially in light of plaintiff's counsel's agreement to limit the request ... the court finds that this limited request is proportionate to the requirements of this case.”
Procedural preferences
He rewards good-faith narrowing of discovery requests and resolves disputes on the request as limited at the hearing rather than as originally drafted; and he declines Rule 37 fee-shifting where both sides conferred and litigated the dispute reasonably, finding an expense award would be 'unjust.'
“While resolution of the discovery matters without the need for motions to compel is always preferred, it is not always possible. Based on the circumstances, the court finds that an award of expenses would be unjust.”
As the consent magistrate on Social Security disability appeals, every claimant in this sample who pressed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings -- or whose case the Commissioner herself moved to remand -- had the denial reversed and the claim sent back to the agency for further proceedings; several were decided only after full briefing and, in a couple of cases, oral argument at a hearing he held. He then granted the claimant's follow-on petition for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act in nearly every case, usually in the exact amount requested, occasionally paring an unreasonable request down before allowing it in part.
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-21] is GRANTED, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-27] is DENIED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
Cautions
Every Social Security appeal in this sample ended in reversal and remand, so it does not show how Meyers handles a claimant's appeal that fails on the merits. His separate work on referred discovery motions, reports and recommendations, and the criminal duty rotation is also not represented. His magistrate orders and reports are not broadly available in public full-text opinion collections, so every outcome here comes from the docket record itself. District-judge adoption orders in referred cases and contested Social Security appeals with claimant losses are absent from the available sample.
“plaintiff's motion to compel [DE-18] is ALLOWED IN PART with regard to the limited request for production, and DENIED IN PART with regard to the request for costs or attorneys' fees.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Nature-of-suit mix is observed, not a counted distribution, across the broader set of cases filed under his name; the duration cohort above is a true count but only of the 10 cases groundable in the record reviewed.
Put Judge Meyers's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Meyers actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Meyers's own signed orders and cites them.