Douglas Russell Cole
How Judge Cole rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cole
Douglas Russell Cole is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Cole received a commission on December 5, 2019.
Judge Cole's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Cole, 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
Conferences
File the preliminary civil discovery plan at least seven days before the preliminary pretrial conference.
“but not less than seven days before the Preliminary Pretrial Conference”
Trial
Email a jointly prepared final pretrial order to chambers at least seven days before the final pretrial conference.
“At least seven days before the Final Pretrial Conference, counsel shall email to [email protected]”
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).
- General Order 24-02 In Re: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- U.S. District Court General Order No. 24-05 ↗
- General Order 23-03 In Re: Automatic Sealing and Procedures for Unsealing of Applications for Search Warrants, Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices, or Court Orders Under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). ↗
How Judge Cole decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Moser v. Menard, Cole held that the settlement agreement’s broad language plausibly covered TK’s breach claim and denied Menard’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
“Given the apparent breadth of the relevant language, TK has at least a plausible argument that the Settlement Agreement covers the claim here.”
Procedural preferences
In Hamilton v. Wellman, Cole granted an unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings after the prisoner's own filings showed he sued before completing the grievance process. Cole dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
“There is no reason not to grant a motion to dismiss where the undisputed facts conclusively establish an affirmative defense as a matter of law.”
In Moser v. Menard, Cole dismissed Thyssenkrupp's declaratory-judgment counterclaim as duplicative because adjudicating its breach-of-contract counterclaim would resolve the same questions.
“Its declaratory judgment claim is duplicative of its breach of contract claim because the Court's adjudication of its breach of contract claim necessarily will answer the questions on which it seeks declaratory relief.”
In a franchise dispute, declined to enforce a pre-suit mediation clause after the franchisor missed the contract’s invocation window.
“because Magnolia failed to timely invoke its right to mediate.”
In Chicago Title v. REMAJ, Cole dismissed title-policy counterclaims without prejudice because the complaint did not plausibly allege that the deed-recording condition for coverage occurred.
“Chicago Title’s promise to issue the policy and provide coverage was conditional on the proper recording of the deed.”
Cautions
In Wiltz v. Yost, Cole dismissed the plaintiff's § 1983 claims against McCoy with prejudice despite this being their first dismissal. The plaintiff had neither moved to amend nor suggested how an amendment could cure the identified defects.
“the Court instead elects to dismiss them with prejudice. Wiltz did not move for leave to amend her Complaint or in any way suggest in her Response that she could resolve the problems McCoy highlighted”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court DENIES Menard's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 30).”
“the Court GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, First Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative procedures.”
“DENIES AS MOOT Hamilton's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 20)”
“Thus, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 14), GRANTS Lucas’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13), and DISMISSES her Complaint (Doc. 4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Court GRANTS McCoy's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 127) ... DISMISSES Wiltz's federal claims against McCoy WITH PREJUDICE ... DISMISSES those [state-law] claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) and DISMISSES Layne's Complaint (Doc. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Masis Lucero's Petition (Doc. 1).”
“the Court DENIES AS MOOT Respondent's Motion (Doc. 13).”
“the Court DENIES Keeling's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 158).”
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Spoljaric's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 50).”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART Mariner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 9).”
“the Court concludes that preliminary injunctive relief is not warranted.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS UCMC’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 31).”
“the Court further GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7), and thereby DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Complaint (Doc. 3) in its entirety. That said, the Court GRANTS Ross thirty days (on or before February 13, 2026) in which to seek leave to file an amended complaint”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 112.5 days (N = 4).
A sample of early-tenure cases terminated in 2020 and 2021 is weighted toward civil-rights and employment matters, with additional product-liability and diversity-contract cases.
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 | 2 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2023 | 46 | 16 |
| Sep 2022 | 77 | 31 |
| Mar 2022 | 62 | 22 |
| Sep 2021 | 76 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 69 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 34 | 5 |
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 Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Cole: 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 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,037 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 810 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 343 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,137 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,153 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,311 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,287 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,012 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,561 | 41.6 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 Cole with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cole, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cole's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace