Christine D. Little
How Judge Little rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Little
Christine D. Little is a United States magistrate judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma. She joined the court in November 2020 after civil litigation practice and eight years as a career law clerk to District Judge John E. Dowdell. She earned her law degree from the University of Oklahoma College of Law.
Judge Little's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Little, 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
Filing
Use the judge’s proposed pretrial order form and submit the joint proposal to chambers by email.
“The parties shall utilize the form of proposed pretrial order available at https://www.oknd.uscourts.gov/cdl. The jointly prepared, proposed pretrial order shall be submitted to [email protected].”
Motions
A motion in limine filed after the pretrial conference is untimely absent manifest injustice.
“Any such motion filed after the pretrial conference is untimely and will not be considered absent a showing of manifest injustice.”
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 Little decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ahmed v. Osage County Sheriff, she recommended dismissing claims against a tribal officer because the Osage Nation had not waived sovereign immunity and the complaint tied his conduct to tribal duties.
“The Osage Nation has not waived sovereign immunity for any of the claims asserted against Officer Fish in the Complaint.”
Procedural preferences
In Byrd v. Independent School District No. 8, she accepted a second amended complaint because the defendants' footnote objection did not show undue delay, prejudice, bad faith, or futility.
“Here, the School District Defendants only raise their objection to amendment in a footnote. They do not assert that any undue delay or prejudice would result from the filing of plaintiff's SAC... As such, the plaintiff's SAC is accepted as amended, as leave shall be freely given.”
In an aircraft repair contract suit, she permitted a late amendment after the plaintiff inspected the aircraft and identified alleged damage; the opposing party did not show substantial prejudice from adding the claim.
“Defendant has not shown that any substantial prejudice would result”
Cautions
On motions in limine, she prefers to defer fact-specific evidentiary questions (e.g., evidence of other lawsuits against a party, disputed damages exhibits) to trial rather than issuing a blanket pretrial exclusion, requiring the proponent to raise the issue again with the court once the evidence and its purpose are concrete.
“a court is almost always better situated during actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence... Before referencing any such information, claims, or lawsuits by others at trial, the plaintiffs' counsel shall first raise the issue at pretrial and obtain a ruling permitting such introduction of evidence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Upon consideration of the motions and applicable law, the Court recommends that the dismissal motions be granted and the plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice.”
“the undersigned recommends that the motion of Officer Fish to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) be granted, and the claims against him in his official and individual capacities be dismissed.”
“the claims against Diane Hanmer, individually and officially, should be dismissed.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court affirms the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court reverses the Commissioner's decision denying benefits and remands the case for further proceedings.”
“denying 36 Motion in Limine Regarding Repair Estimates that Utilize Pricing that Post-Dates the Date of Loss”
“granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses, Testimony Not Based on Personal Knowledge, and Referring to Fact Witnesses as ‘Experts’”
“defendant's requests to exclude evidence or argument as to categories A, B, C, D, G, and H are granted in part (as to Phase I of the trial).”
“granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion in Limine - Omnibus and Brief in Support”
“denying 40 Motion to Exclude”
“The School District Defendants' first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is therefore moot.”
“Therefore, to the extent the SAC purports to assert claims under Title VI against any defendant in an individual capacity (i.e. Arnett, Hausner, Orcutt, and Williams), such claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“any purported Title IX claims asserted against individual defendants are dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted inasmuch as the Court has determined there is no genuine issue of material fact and Employers Mutual is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it has no duty to defend Dirt Daddy or Austin Murray in the state court suits brought by Eagle Redi-Mix or KSMI.”
“Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner finding Plaintiff not disabled for the relevant period is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“the Motion to Remand (Doc. 21) is granted, and this case is remanded to the District Court of Delaware County, Oklahoma”
“the Motions (Doc. 8, 9, 10) are granted.”
“(Doc. 64) is granted. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint on or before”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 79) is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 513 days (N = 23).
Little's consent docket is dominated by Social Security disability appeals, with a smaller number of insurance, employment, and civil-rights cases in which the parties consented to her presiding through trial. She also handles referrals, including recommendations and discovery disputes, in district judges' civil and criminal 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 | 9 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 7 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
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 Northern District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Little: 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 | 525 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 112 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 401 | 7.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 525 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 491 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 487 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 526 | 13.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 481 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 563 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 544 | 9.8 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 Little with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Little, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Little's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace