Christopher Allan Boyko
How Judge Boyko rules, drawn from 44 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Boyko
Christopher A. Boyko is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Boyko received a commission on January 3, 2005. Judge Boyko assumed senior status on January 6, 2020.
Judge Boyko's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Boyko, 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.
- Report of Parties' Planning Meeting ↗
- Notice of Case Management Conference ↗
- Civil Trial Order ↗
- Criminal Trial Order ↗
- Criminal Pretrial Order ↗
- Settlement Conferences ↗
- Case Management Order ↗
- Compliant Protective Orders ↗
- Discovery Dispute Procedure ↗
- Generative AI ↗
Key rules
Filing
The standing order bars AI use to prepare filings, while excluding information gathered from legal or internet search engines.
“no attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who violate this AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing.”
Discovery
The court requires proof of compliance with Local Rule 37.1 before it will entertain a discovery call or motion to compel.
“The Court will not entertain phone calls or Motions to Compel prior to proof of compliance with Local Rule 37.1.”
Discovery
Counsel must supply affidavits attesting to good faith efforts to resolve a discovery dispute.
“For purposes of certification the Court requires affidavits of counsel attesting to good faith efforts to resolve the dispute.”
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).
How Judge Boyko decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
The judge enforced Ohio's affidavit-of-merit rule in a federal medical-malpractice case, but allowed a short cure period where the plaintiff had reasonably relied on contrary authority. A concrete explanation for the omission supported good cause; silence would have led to dismissal without prejudice.
“Here, the Court finds Plaintiff reasonably relied on the Thompson case and therefore, has shown good cause sufficient to grant his request for a thirty day extension.”
When discovery arrived late but caused little prejudice after the schedule was extended, the judge rejected dismissal and left room for fees or costs instead. The reviewed order shows that proportional, lesser sanctions can be more persuasive than seeking immediate case-ending relief.
“the Court holds that the ‘harsh’ sanction of dismissal is not warranted under these circumstances and that less severe sanctions are more appropriate.”
In an FLSA overtime case, he allowed collective notice after deposition and expert evidence indicated that the employer rounded time under national pay policies, including for workers covered by collective bargaining agreements.
“In short, the testimony and evidence at this stage of the proceedings shows with some exceptions that Defendant rounded employee time in accordance with its U.S.-based pay policies even for those employees subject to collective bargaining agreements and those were rounded heavily in favor of Defendant per Dr. Kriegler’s research.”
Procedural preferences
In Luster v. AWP, Boyko did not consider travel allegations raised in the plaintiffs' opposition brief because they were absent from the amended complaint. He confined the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis to the pleading's four corners.
“The Court must restrict itself to the ‘four corners’ of Plaintiffs’ pleading; and thus, has not considered these assertions in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) analysis.”
In a pleadings dispute, Boyko treated a motion captioned as one for summary judgment as a Rule 12(c) motion because it challenged only the complaint's sufficiency and identified no factual dispute.
“Defendant captions its Motion as a Motion for Summary Judgment but the Motion relies entirely upon the alleged insufficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint and does not assert there are no genuine issues of fact. Therefore, the Court deems the Motion as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule of Civ. P. 12(c).”
In the reviewed immigration detention case, the court required case-specific support for continued detention and found conclusory assertions about expected removal and danger insufficient.
“Such bare assertions come close to a pretextual formality rather than the individualized review that due process demands.”
Cautions
In Malee v. Anthony & Frank DiTomaso, Boyko declined to rely on an unsworn expert report at summary judgment. The plaintiffs did not explain how its conclusions would be presented in admissible form at trial.
“Plaintiffs offer no explanation on how the expert’s report conclusions will be offered at trial and thus have not met their burden on summary judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, the Motion (ECF DKT #107) of Defendant AWP, Inc., d/b/a Area Wide Protective to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is granted.”
“The Court grants Take-Two's Motion to Dismiss Hayden's Unjust Enrichment claim because it is preempted by the Copyright Act. The Court also grants Take-Two's Motion to Dismiss Hayden's claim for Declaratory Judgment due to the absence of an actual 'case or controversy' ... Finally, the Court denies Take-Two's Motion to Dismiss Hayden's request for statutory damages and attorney's fees with respect to Hayden's Registered Tattoos depicted in NBA 2K17 and NBA 2K18.”
“For the following reasons, the Court grants, in part, Defendant’s Motion.”
“For the following reasons, the Court grants the Motion and dismisses the above-captioned case without prejudice, subject to refiling.”
“Because there are genuine issues of fact whether certain deductions were improper -i.e.- cleaning fees, the Court finds summary judgment is improper. Therefore, for the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”
“For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Therefore, the Complaint is barred and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted for failure to state a claim and/or for untimeliness.”
“For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF DKT #5) to Remand to State Court is granted and the above-captioned case is returned to Lake County Common Pleas Court.”
“For these reasons, the Motion (ECF DKT #83) of Defendants, Marc J. McNaughton, M.D. and Prime Health, Inc., in Limine to Preclude Testimony or Argument based on Testimony of Dr. Lawrence Mendel is granted. The opinions and testimony of Dr. Mendel are, therefore, excluded.”
“This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony from Plaintiffs’ Designated Expert Witness Cheryl Blume, Ph.D. (ECF # 89). For the following reasons, the Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, Defendants’ Motion.”
“Whirlpool’s motion to exclude the testimony of Todd B. Hilsee (docket no. 294) is GRANTED; ... Plaintiffs’ motion to limit and exclude the testimony of Dr. Timothy Bresnahan (docket nos. 295, 296) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; ... Whirlpool’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. David Griffin (docket no. 291) is DENIED;”
“Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 191.5 days (N = 6).
- The sampled 2021-2026 docket includes post-conviction and immigration habeas matters, Social Security appeals, federal criminal cases, disability-access claims, trade-secret and consumer-reporting disputes, employee-benefit cases, False Claims Act litigation, and subpoena proceedings.
- Several magistrate judges appear in sampled referrals.
- The sample is not a complete description of Judge Boyko's active senior-status docket.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 8 |
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 United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, not for Judge Boyko: 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 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 394 | 3.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,035 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 607 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 18 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,008 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,137 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,330 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,432 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,788 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,158 | 9.9 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 Boyko with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boyko, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Boyko's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace