Susan E. Huntsman
How Judge Huntsman rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Huntsman
Susan E. Huntsman is a United States magistrate judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma. She joined the court in April 2021 after two decades of private practice at Crowe & Dunlevy in Tulsa. She earned her law degree from Harvard Law School.
Judge Huntsman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Huntsman, 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
Discovery
File a joint discovery status report on behalf of all parties with the listed discovery dates and remaining witnesses.
“The joint status report on discovery shall be filed on behalf of all parties and contain the following information:”
Conferences
At the initial scheduling conference, be ready to address electronically stored information and proportionality.
“At the initial scheduling conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss the following: 1. claims at issue, subjects for discovery, and proportionality;”
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 Huntsman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Black, Huntsman remanded because the ALJ did not resolve a conflict between the claimant’s simple, repetitive-task limitation and a mailroom job assigned reasoning level three in the occupational listings. A general assurance from the vocational expert did not resolve that conflict.
“Once it appears there is a conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT, the ALJ must resolve that conflict in a reasoned manner—and not with a generalized affirmation that there are ‘no conflicts.’”
In Cresap, Huntsman found a possible error in the ALJ’s step-one work-activity calculation harmless because the ALJ proceeded to assess the claimant’s functioning and past work over the full relevant period.
“The Court agrees any step-one error was harmless.”
Procedural preferences
In Jose M. U. v. Bisignano, she denied a request to reopen judgment for a Social Security fee award after counsel waited nearly seven months from receipt of the benefits notice and offered no explanation for the delay; the dependent fee motion was denied as well.
“Here, counsel filed the at-issue motions over eight months after the Notice of Award and nearly seven months from counsel’s separate receipt of the Notice. ... The motion for relief from judgment will be denied and, as a result, the motion for § 406(b) fees will also be denied.”
In Cresap, Huntsman warned counsel that briefs violating court rules or orders could be stricken after a reply brief exceeded the scheduling order’s length limit.
“Plaintiff's counsel is cautioned that briefs violating this Court's rules or orders are subject to being stricken.”
In one removed insurance case, Huntsman required the insurer to identify actual false jurisdictional allegations before treating a resident adjuster as fraudulently joined; a claimed preference for a state forum did not establish that prong.
“State Farm has failed to establish fraudulent joinder under the first prong.”
Cautions
In Downs, Huntsman denied EAJA fees after finding that the Commissioner’s unsuccessful harmless-error argument was substantially justified. She described the significant-number-of-jobs issue as unsettled within the circuit.
“The Commissioner has met her burden of showing the position of the United States was substantially justified. EAJA fees are not appropriate in this case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons explained below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“It cannot square the ALJ's analysis of medical opinions with the guidelines set forth in 20 C.F.R. Section 416.920c. As such, the Court reverses the decision for further proceedings.”
“The Court finds the ALJ erred in failing to resolve the conflict and reverses on this basis.”
“The Court agrees that the ALJ's step-five findings were in error and, therefore, does not reach Plaintiff's other arguments.”
“The Court agrees, and Plaintiff's motion will be denied.”
“the Court finds the Rule 60(b) motion was not made within a reasonable time, as required by Rule 60(c)(1). The motion for relief from judgment will be denied”
“as a result, the motion for Section 406(b) fees will also be denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ’s decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ’s decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 491.5 days (N = 26).
Huntsman's consent docket is dominated by Social Security disability appeals. She also handles recommendations, discovery disputes, settlement conferences, and preliminary criminal proceedings in other judges' cases. The classified outcomes here are limited to dispositive rulings she signed in consent matters.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 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 Huntsman: 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 Huntsman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Huntsman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Huntsman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace