Douglas E. Arpert
How Judge Arpert rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Arpert no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Arpert
Douglas E. Arpert served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Trenton Vicinage of the District of New Jersey from 2009 until his retirement in 2024. Before joining the bench, he practiced commercial litigation and products liability law and served as a municipal public defender and prosecutor. He earned degrees from Franklin and Marshall College and Emory University School of Law.
How Judge Arpert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Baier v. Princeton Office Park, Arpert rejected Berger's burden objection to a postjudgment subpoena because Berger gave no figures for the cost or labor required to comply.
“Mr. Berger does not demonstrate how the request would be disproportionate to any possible need. Mr. Berger does not, for instance, detail the monetary or labor costs of complying with the Subpoena.”
In Miller v. Rodriguez, Arpert denied nonparties' sanctions request after finding a genuine dispute about service of their subpoenas that substantially justified the defendants' motion to compel.
“As such, the Court finds that there was substantial justification for Defendants to proceed with the filing of a motion to compel.”
Procedural preferences
In RLI Insurance v. Vintage Contracting, Arpert recommended enforcing a settlement after finding an indemnitor’s emails and partial performance showed he knew its terms and intended to be bound. He recommended denying the indemnitor’s request to set the agreement aside.
“various emails between Mr. Garofalo and his former counsel evidence his understanding of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and his intent to be bound by such terms. ... Mr. Garofalo's compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement ... provides further evidence that he had full knowledge of the terms thereof.”
In RLI Insurance v. Vintage Contracting, the district judge reviewed objections to Arpert’s settlement recommendation de novo and adopted it in full.
“Having reviewed the issues raised in the objections de novo, the Court agrees with the conclusions reached by Judge Arpert.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants [ECF No. 106] is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees is DENIED without prejudice.”
“For the reasons above, the Court finds that Defendants were substantially justified in bringing their motion to compel and that an award of sanctions in this matter would be unjust. The Third Parties’ motion for sanctions is denied.”
“ORDERED that DCH’s application to stay discovery pending the Court’s decision on its Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the Court approves and adopts the January 4, 2012 Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J.; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 17) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”
“ORDERED that Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [dkt. no. 378] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth above”
“ORDERED that End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [dkt. no. 377] is GRANTED”
“the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 130) and GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 112)”
“GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 133)”
“DENY Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 123)”
“GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 117)”
“For the reasons above, the Court shall adopt those parts of the Report and Recommendation not inconsistent with this Opinion, and grants Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and for entry of judgment [docket entry no. 23] and denies Defendant’s cross-motion to set aside the settlement agreement [docket entry no. 32].”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement their expert reports is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to bar introduction of evidence related to Plaintiff’s eye surgeries is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.”
“Sanctions are inappropriate at this time. Although unavailing, Plaintiffs’ arguments are not completely without merit. Instead, Plaintiffs’ position appears to be made in good faith and based on a legitimate dispute regarding the scope of discovery.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No. 40] for leave to file an amended complaint is granted in part and denied in part”
“ORDERED Plaintiff’s informal application to compel discovery is granted in part and denied in part”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed civil matters span two periods: a 2009-2013 mix of consumer, wage-and-hour, employee-benefit, securities, patent, and civil-rights cases, and a 2021-2024 group weighted toward personal-injury, product-liability, and collective wage actions.
- Many of the later matters settled early.
- Arpert also handled short criminal-duty matters involving warrants, initial appearances, and related applications.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Arpert was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2024.
| 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 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge Arpert no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.