Karen M. Williams
How Judge Williams rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Williams
Karen McGlashan Williams is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Williams received a commission on November 1, 2021.
Judge Williams's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Williams, 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
Contacting chambers
File letters to chambers through ECF; do not deliver hard copies.
“All communications with Chambers shall be by letter electronically filed via ECF. No hard copies of letters shall be delivered to the Court.”
Filing
Provide a courtesy copy for sealed briefs and supporting papers, or for voluminous papers when chambers requests one.
“The parties shall provide one courtesy copy of only those briefs and supporting papers which have been filed Under Seal, or of any voluminous documents, as requested by chambers.”
Motions
Do not expect oral argument on a motion’s return date unless the court advises counsel.
“The Court generally will not hear oral argument on the return date.”
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).
- Second Amended Standing Order 2026-02: In Re Increase in Immigration-Related Habeas Corpus Petitions seeking Emergent Relief ↗
- Standing Order 2025-05: IN RE Procedures for Access to and Service of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 2025-04: IN RE "Schedule A" Cases ↗
- Standing Order 2024-03: In re: Amendment to Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents and Guidance for Same ↗
- Standing Order 2024-02: Electronic Signatures ↗
How Judge Williams decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Patel v. AP Hospitality, Williams granted summary judgment on claims she found time barred but allowed contract and conspiracy claims concerning the India property to proceed. She distinguished the claims based on when the plaintiffs had notice and on the evidence supporting each theory.
“To survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those offered by the moving party.”
In Patel v. AP Hospitality, Williams held that the defendants' failure to provide requested K-1 forms alerted the plaintiffs to their potential claim in 2008, making the transaction claims untimely when filed fourteen years later.
“the failure of AP Hospitality to provide the form K-1 filings to plaintiffs alerted them of their potential claim.”
In Figuracion v. Salem County, Williams allowed claims against the prison medical contractor to proceed because the complaint alleged policies of inadequate staffing and suicide prevention at the pleading stage.
“Plaintiff need only allege—not prove—the existence of such policies.”
Procedural preferences
In Klemmer v. MGM Resorts, Williams upheld a magistrate judge’s order requiring reimbursement of a half day expert fee after the plaintiff canceled a deposition shortly before its scheduled date. She found the fee supported by the agreed procedures and declined to disturb the discovery ruling under Rule 72(a).
“Rule 72(a) does not permit a district court to set aside a magistrate judge’s discovery ruling merely because another reasonable interpretation exists”
In Lewis v. Capital One Auto Finance, Williams dismissed Elijah Lewis's contract claim on the pleadings because he was neither a signatory nor an intended beneficiary of the auto finance contract, while Jasmine Lewis's claim remained pending.
“the Court must dismiss Elijah Lewis’ claims because he does not have contractual privity with Defendant and therefore does not have standing in the instant case, pursuant to a breach of contract theory.”
In Glass v. UPS, Williams denied a motion to exclude the plaintiff's engineering expert after finding that his analysis drew on case materials and recognized authorities and addressed the conveyor design at issue; she left the defendant's critiques for cross examination.
“Defendant MHS' critiques of his opinion can be addressed at trial through cross examination.”
In McGarvey v. Great Wolf Lodge, Williams allowed an amendment correcting the defendant's name under Rule 15's relation back provision, then ordered the parties to address a possible transfer to Pennsylvania after finding personal jurisdiction lacking in New Jersey.
“the Court finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C) are satisfied.”
Cautions
In F.V. and M.V. v. Cherry Hill Township Board of Education, Williams granted summary judgment to the school board and affirmed the administrative decision in an IDEA appeal. The plaintiffs did not substantively oppose the motion.
“the Board's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the ALJ's Final Decision is accordingly affirmed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants Lyneer, UPS, and SDI's Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED”
“Defendant MHS's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Opinion Testimony are DENIED.”
“the Court denies Defendant MHS' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's expert's testimony finding that Plaintiff's expert testimony is sufficient to survive a motion to exclude”
“the Board's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the ALJ's Final Decision is accordingly affirmed.”
“Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 8), will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying Defendants' 98 and 100 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Karen M. Williams on 9/30/2023.”
“For all of the reasons set forth above, Hanover's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“Petitioner's habeas petition shall be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.”
“For all of the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion for summary judgment is granted, in part, and denied, in part.”
“For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Board's motion, REVERSES the ALJ's decision, and REMANDS this matter to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law for further proceedings.”
“Petitioner's habeas petition will therefore be dismissed as it is premature, unexhausted, and in any event without merit.”
“Plaintiffs' Cross Motion to Vacate and/or Modify Arbitration Award (ECF No. 158) is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (ECF No. 156) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety.”
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 | 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 | 24 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 24 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 27 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 25 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 21 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 18 |
| Mar 2023 | 7 | 17 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, not for Judge Williams: 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 | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 370 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,266 | 5.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2,317 | 14.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 17 | 36.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,921 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,378 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 7,053 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,064 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 9,031 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 10,590 | 9 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 Williams with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Williams, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Williams's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace