Matthew J. Skahill
How Judge Skahill rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Skahill
Matthew J. Skahill is a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting in Camden since March 2021. He earned a bachelor’s degree from the College of the Holy Cross and a law degree from the University of Connecticut. Before joining the bench, he served as a Deputy United States Attorney in New Jersey.
Judge Skahill's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Skahill, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Send courtesy copies only on request or when a submission with exhibits exceeds 100 pages.
“Courtesy copies of papers should not be sent to Chambers unless specifically requested or the submission, including exhibits, exceeds 100 pages in length.”
Discovery
Seek leave before filing a discovery motion, after meeting and conferring.
“Discovery motions may be filed only upon leave of the Court and after the parties have proceeded in accordance with Local Rules 16.1 and 37.1 and the Court’s instructions in the Pretrial Scheduling Order.”
Conferences
Email a confidential settlement memorandum at least three business days before the conference, normally within ten double-spaced pages.
“Magistrate Judge Skahill will normally require counsel to submit a confidential settlement memorandum at least 3 business days prior to the settlement conference.”
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 Skahill decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Truong v. Delta International Machinery, Skahill recommended denying a motion to exclude a warnings expert because the link between the table saw and the plaintiff's injury was clear, leaving causation on the merits for later decision.
“Here, there can be little doubt as to the association between plaintiff’s injuries and the Unisaw and, thus, for the purposes of this Motion plaintiff need not provide evidence of a causal link.”
In Antico v. RAM Payment, Skahill granted leave to file a second amended complaint before a renewed class certification request. He found the defendants had not shown prejudice that could not be addressed through discovery scheduling.
“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.”
A spoliation request needs evidence that the disputed material actually existed and was lost through inadequate preservation; assumptions about a business's recording capacity or retention policy do not justify an adverse inference.
“general presumptions of a party’s recording capacity and retention policy are insufficient to establish spoliation of video without additional evidence”
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.”
In a prison-conditions case, Skahill recommended dismissal without prejudice after the self-represented plaintiff repeatedly failed to update his address, serve the defendants, or communicate with the court. Applying the six Poulis factors, he declined to recommend dismissal with prejudice because the case was still at an early stage and the plaintiff had moved in and out of custody.
“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.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement is GRANTED”
“ORDER Granting 18 Motion for appointment of umpire for appraisal; ORDERED that John Herrick is hereby appointed as umpire;”
“Hearing on application by defendant for release on bail Julena Williams sworn for defendant Hearing on application by Government for detention Oral Opinion read into the record Ordered defendant’s application denied Ordered Government’s application granted”
“Hearing on government's application for detention. Hearing on defendant's application for bail. Ordered third-party custodian sworn. Mark Selover, sworn Ordered government's application GRANTED.”
“Hearing on government's application for bail to be set. Ordered application granted. Ordered bail to be set at $50,000.00 unsecured with conditions.”
“Hearing on defendant's application for release. Ordered third-party custodian sworn. Lawrence Naylor, sworn. Both parties consent to conditions of release. Ordered Defendant's application GRANTED. Ordered bail to be set at $100,000.00 unsecured appearance bond with conditions.”
“Hearing on government's application for detention to continue. Hearing on defendant's application for release. Ordered third-party custodian sworn. Angel Tomas Valcarcel Rodriguez, sworn. Ordered Defendant's application GRANTED. Ordered bail to be set at $100,000.00 unsecured appearance bond with conditions.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 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.
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 Skahill: 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 Skahill with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Skahill, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Skahill's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace