Douglas E. Arpert
Judge Arpert no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Arpert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On discovery disputes he applies the ordinary Rule 26(b) relevance and proportionality framework and gives little weight to a burden objection that is not backed by concrete figures -- a party who calls compliance 'exceedingly burdensome' without detailing the cost or labor involved has not carried its burden to resist production.
“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. ... More than mere adjectives and conclusionary statements are needed for the Court to determine that a request for documents ... is not just cumulative, but 'unreasonably cumulative,' and not just burdensome but 'unduly burdensome.'”
On Rule 37(a)(5)(B) sanctions requests he asks whether there was a genuine, good-faith dispute rather than treating an unsuccessful motion as automatically sanctionable -- and separately weighs whether the party seeking fees negotiated in good faith before raising its objection.
“At best, the evidence created a 'genuine dispute' as to whether service had been effected in the manner the process server described. ... the Court finds that there was substantial justification for Defendants to proceed with the filing of a motion to compel.”
Procedural preferences
On settlement enforcement he sets a high bar for unwinding a negotiated agreement: correspondence and part-performance showing a party understood and intended to be bound by the settlement's terms will defeat a later attempt to disavow it, even where the party blames former counsel for not disclosing a risk.
“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.”
His dispositive Reports and Recommendations were consistently adopted in full by the district judges who reviewed them in this sample, including on de novo review of a contested objection.
“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.
A historical record
Judge Arpert no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.