Karen L. Litkovitz
How Judge Litkovitz rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Litkovitz
Karen L. Litkovitz is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Ohio in Cincinnati. She was appointed in October 2010 and earned degrees from Bowling Green State University and the University of Cincinnati College of Law.
Judge Litkovitz's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Litkovitz, 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.
- Standing Orders on Civil Procedures ↗
- Standing Orders on Oral Arguments ↗
- Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases in lieu of the Rule 26 Disclosures ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Except in incarcerated pro se cases, counsel must attempt written and telephone resolution and contact chambers for a conference before filing a discovery motion.
“This Court defines ‘extrajudicial means’ as requiring counsel/pro se parties to try to resolve the matter both in writing and telephonically.”
Discovery
Before an informal discovery conference, deliver a brief of no more than two pages to chambers at least one day ahead.
“more than 2 pages in length, setting forth arguments for or against the requested discovery at least 1 day before the 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).
- 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 Litkovitz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a counterclaim dispute, a district judge adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to dismiss a breach-of-contract count based on representations outside an integrated agreement while allowing other counterclaims to proceed.
“Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count II of the Counterclaims is DISMISSED.”
In a consumer credit case, a district judge adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to deny two defense dismissal motions.
“Defendant EWS's motion for partial dismissal/motion for more definite statement (Doc. 7) is DENIED”
Procedural preferences
In one screening matter, a district judge adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to dismiss a complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).
“The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B);”
Cautions
In one long-closed civil case, a district judge adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to deny a Rule 60 motion filed years after judgment.
“Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration/relief from judgment (Doc. 43) is DENIED;”
In a May 2026 sanctions dispute, Litkovitz rejected an allegation that a self-represented plaintiff used undisclosed help because similar pleadings and inconsistent testimony did not establish a Rule 11 violation.
“speculation is not an adequate basis for Rule 11 sanctions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
District Judge Timothy S. Black adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation, denied the plaintiff’s recusal motion, and granted the defendants’ motion on Count II.
District Judge Timothy S. Black adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to deny two defense dismissal motions.
District Judge Timothy S. Black adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation approving a joint attorney fee stipulation.
District Judge Timothy S. Black adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to deny the plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion for relief from a judgment entered years earlier.
District Judge Susan J. Dlott adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to grant in part and deny in part a motion to dismiss counterclaims, dismissing the breach of contract count.
District Judge Timothy S. Black adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution.
District Judge Matthew W. McFarland adopted Litkovitz’s recommendation to dismiss a screened complaint with prejudice.
Sua sponte in forma pauperis screening of a pro se civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of all claims with prejudice as frivolous and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Grounding: "All claims contained in plaintiff's complaint should be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)". No adversary motion; excluded from decision statistics.
Prisoner-complaint screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and that the plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief be denied as moot. Grounding: "Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Sua sponte screening; excluded from decision statistics.
“Plaintiff American Express National Bank's motion to remand this matter to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (Doc. 15) be GRANTED, and this matter be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas in Butler County, Ohio.”
“plaintiff's Statement of Errors (Doc. 8) is SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART and the Commissioner's non-disability finding is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS consistent with this Order.”
“the parties' joint motion to remand (Doc. 15) is GRANTED; this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled directly assigned docket is dominated by Social Security disability appeals decided with the parties' consent and criminal-duty search- and tracking-device-warrant matters.
- Social Security appeals proceed on the administrative record from the claimant's statement of errors through opposition, reply, and a final order affirming or reversing the Commissioner.
- The sample is illustrative rather than random.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 11 | 3 |
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 Litkovitz: 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 Litkovitz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Litkovitz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Litkovitz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace