Veronica L. Duffy
How Judge Duffy rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Duffy
Veronica L. Duffy became a full-time United States magistrate judge in the District of South Dakota in October 2014 after earlier part-time service. She handles referred civil matters, including recommendations on prisoner and habeas petitions.
Judge Duffy's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Duffy's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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).
- STANDING ORDER 25-03 - In the Matter of Procedures for the Access and Management of Non-Public Documents in Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order 22-06 Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines in Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order 23-02 Revising the Procedure for Compassionate Release Motions Under the First Step Act ↗
- Standing Order 24-01 - Disclosure of Jail Incident Reports or Similar Documents ↗
How Judge Duffy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Owen v. Young, she evaluated an unopposed summary judgment motion under Rule 56 rather than grant it by default, recommended judgment for the defendants, and the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“even where a summary judgment motion is unopposed, the court must still determine if summary judgment is appropriate. ... summary judgment cannot be granted by default even if there is a complete failure to respond to the motion.”
In Fassett v. Young, Duffy recommended dismissing the habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“she recommended dismissing the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies as is required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).”
In Satschel, Inc. v. Wilson, Duffy recommended denying dismissal as a discovery sanction because the disputed omission fell short of willful, bad-faith defiance; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“this is a far cry from the kind of bad faith, willful, and obdurate flouting of the discovery rules that would justify the sanction of dismissal.”
In Satschel, Inc. v. Wilson, Duffy reduced the requested Rule 37 fees for unrelated work and duplication before awarding the plaintiff fees for the discovery motions.
“Because there is some small amount of duplication, the court reduces the above total by 10 percent to $30,156.30.”
Cautions
In Wetch v. Crum & Forster Commercial Insurance, she recommended denying partial summary judgment on an insurance bad-faith claim after finding factual disputes and uncertainty in the governing law.
“the court finds the confluence of Sopko I, Sopko II, and 62-4-1.1, 62-7-12, and 62-7-33 was sufficiently unclear prior to Hayes to create a genuine issue of material fact ... For all these reasons, the court recommends denying Mr. Wetch's motion for partial summary judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“this court respectfully recommends that the motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 43] filed by defendants be granted and that Lance Owen's amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”
“it is respectfully recommended that Mr. Wetch's motion for partial summary judgment on both prongs of the bad faith test [Docket No. 59] should be denied.”
“Magistrate Judge Duffy's report and recommendation (Docket 7) is adopted in full.”
“Respondents' motion to dismiss (Docket 9) is granted.”
“Ultimately, the magistrate judge determined that ‘Wilson’s motion seeking to dismiss Satschel’s complaint for asserted discovery abuses is without merit.’”
“ORDERED that plaintiff Satschel’s motion to compel [Docket No. 63] is granted in its entirety.”
“ORDERED that plaintiff Satschel, Inc.'s motion for attorney's fees (Docket No. 110) is granted in part and denied in part as detailed above in this opinion.”
“denying disability benefits to plaintiff in this matter is affirmed.”
“ORDERED that the Commissioner will pay to Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $7,365.57”
“ORDERED that the motion to amend (Doc. 14) is granted.”
“ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff is awarded EAJA”
“ORDERED that Mr. Rodriguez’s motion for court-appointed counsel [Docket No. 23] is denied at this time.”
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 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, not for Judge Duffy: 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 | 236 | 10.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 76 | 11 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 151 | 8.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 236 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 248 | 11.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 222 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 220 | 12.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 197 | 13.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 216 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 233 | 10.8 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 Duffy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Duffy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Duffy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace