William D. Wall
Judge Wall no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Wall decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
For intrusive DNA discovery, Wall tied production to a concrete evidentiary use and limited the requested sample to impeachment purposes.
“the court grants the motion compelling the production of the DNA sample on the assumption that Rosenblum will indeed be limited to that use at trial”
He treated the method by which protected material was obtained as central when deciding whether former employees could use customer information.
“The plaintiff has met its burden of establishing that it possesses trade secrets or confidential information”
Procedural preferences
Partial success on competing discovery positions did not justify shifting costs where each side's arguments were substantially justified.
“The motions having been granted in part and denied in part, and the arguments on both sides having been, for the most part, substantially justified, no costs will be awarded to either party.”
Even after long delay, amendment could proceed selectively where particular defendants would not suffer undue prejudice.
“Although the court is very reluctant to grant a motion to amend seven years after the original complaint, under the circumstances of this case, the amendment will be allowed to add Kusky, Holt and McGovern as named defendants.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Thus, I recommend that the Commissioner’s argument be rejected and the motion granted.”
“Judge Wall held a hearing on the plaintiffs motion, and on February 18, 2010, he issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the preliminary injunction as requested.”
“it is recommended that the motion be granted, and that plaintiff be awarded statutory damages in the amount of $200,000.00 and costs in the amount of $350.00”
“it is recommended that plaintiffs motion be granted in part and denied in part.”
“Magistrate Judge Wall granted to the plaintiff ‘everything counsel asked for’”
“Magistrate Judge Wall’s Report, requested by this Court, recommended finding for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”
“The Report also denied Defendants’ renewed cross-motion for sanctions against Plaintiff”
“Wall recommending that this Court deny the Mitchells’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”
“AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Wall’s denial of their discovery request.”
“the undersigned recommends that the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction be granted as against the defendants Anthony Valenti, Kathleen Valenti and Matrix Group, Ltd. and denied as against Jay Greengrass, Linda Remenschneider, Renee Marquart, and John Barrotta.”
“The R & R recommends the Court grant defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings”
“The R & R recommends the Court grant defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and deny plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint.”
“the undersigned recommends that the petition for habeas corpus be denied, inasmuch as none of the grounds advanced has merit”
“the undersigned recommends that the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction be granted”
“the defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied.”
“Wall recommended that Defendants’ motion to strike the Complaint be granted, and that the action be dismissed pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The fixed sample included medical-malpractice, employee-benefits, civil-rights, contract, wage-and-hour, and consumer-credit matters. All eight sampled cases were closed, and their durations ranged from 170 to 1,588 days; this deliberately historical availability sample is not a measure of typical case duration.
A historical record
Judge Wall 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.