Matthew J. Skahill
How Judge Skahill decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Daubert motion he focuses on reliability and fit and resists conflating admissibility with the merits: a warnings expert need not supply evidence of a causal link to be admissible where the association between the product and the plaintiff's injury is not 'attenuated'; proximate cause is a merits/proximate-cause question not properly before the court on a Daubert motion.
“for the purposes of this Motion plaintiff need not provide evidence of a causal link. The Court stresses it is not making a judgment on the merits ... This question implicates proximate cause which is not properly before the Court on this Motion.”
Liberal Rule 15 amendment with prejudice as the touchstone: he will grant leave to amend where the opposing party cannot show prejudice that is not curable by adjusting discovery/scheduling, even late in the case and even when the amendment sets up a renewed class-certification motion.
“The Court does not find that Defendants have met their burden with respect to proving they will be prejudiced by the Court granting Plaintiff's Motion.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion to exclude N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to appoint counsel N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to amend N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for costs N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for settlement approval N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is respectfully recommended that defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Report of Gerald Rennell be DENIED.”
SUA SPONTE R&R (no party motion) -- excluded from motion stats; counts as an order read. Pro se prisoner 14th-Amendment conditions-of-confinement case. After plaintiff repeatedly failed to update his address (Local Civ. R. 10.1(a)), failed to serve defendants after two orders, and went silent over five months, Skahill works through all six Poulis factors and recommends DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Local Civ. R. 10.1 and Rule 41(b) -- expressly declining with-prejudice dismissal given the early stage and plaintiff's in-and-out custody. Quote: 'RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Local Civil Rule 10.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).' cc: Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb.
“Plaintiff's motion to appoint pro bono counsel [ECF No. 40] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of the second amended complaint.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for reimbursement for costs are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART ... Plaintiff's requests for legal fees are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff seeks an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement ... [granted]”