Susan K. Lee
How Judge Lee rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Lee no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Lee
Susan K. Lee served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee from 2004 until her retirement on January 1, 2025. Before joining the bench, she practiced law in Atlanta and Chattanooga. Michael J. Dumitru succeeded her as magistrate judge.
How Judge Lee decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a suggestive eyewitness-identification challenge, the judge did not stop at the government's concession that the procedure was suggestive; she independently worked through each of the Neil v. Biggers reliability factors before concluding suppression was unwarranted.
“After considering the five factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Neil, I find Nopper's identification of Buford is reliable and due process does not require the exclusion of testimony of her identification.”
On a motion to compel discovery in an employment-discrimination case, she calibrated the scope of 'me too' discovery to the specific supervisors alleged to be involved in the challenged decision, rather than granting either party's more extreme all-or-nothing proposal.
“Based on the current record and considering the jurisprudence referenced above and the argument of counsel, the Court finds the balance weighs in favor of allowing limited discovery as set forth below.”
Procedural preferences
In Derryberry v. City of East Ridge, she denied a motion to compel filed after the discovery cutoff because the defendant showed no special circumstances and had not certified a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute.
“Courts routinely hold that motions seeking court intervention in discovery disputes after the close of discovery are untimely absent special or extreme circumstances.”
Facing a party who simply stopped responding to motions, she granted the unopposed relief but paired it with a firm push toward private mediation rather than letting the case drift toward trial by default.
“the parties are ORDERED to engage in private mediation to attempt to resolve this case. Unless this case is resolved sooner by agreement, the parties SHALL participate in private mediation with a mutually agreed-upon mediator by no later than August 15, 2024.”
In Gott v. Neuman & Esser USA, Inc., Lee declined dismissal as a discovery sanction after finding the plaintiffs’ delayed production was neither willful nor in bad faith and caused no significant prejudice.
“I conclude they did not act with willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Moreover, and in spite of Defendant's protests to the contrary, I also conclude that Defendant is not prejudiced in any significant manner as a result of the discovery violation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I RECOMMEND that Defendants' motions to dismiss be DENIED.”
“I RECOMMEND1 that Plaintiff's motion to amend [Doc. 10] be DENIED, with leave to refile a new motion in compliance with the local rules.”
“Accordingly, I RECOMMEND Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2 & 5] be DENIED. ... if Plaintiff pays the filing fee, I also RECOMMEND the amended complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“For the reasons stated herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Buford's motion to suppress [Doc. No. 18] be DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the motion to compel [Doc. 40] is DENIED.”
“Defendants did not file a response to either of Plaintiff's motions, and the time for doing so has passed. ... Accordingly, both motions [Doc. 56 & Doc. 57] are GRANTED as unopposed.”
“Accordingly, the aspect of Defendants' unopposed motion seeking to compel full and compete discovery responses to the outstanding interrogatories and requests for production is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendants' to further respond to their discovery request [Doc. 22] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: Defendants will produce ... a copy of all EEOC charges, lawsuits, and complaints ... asserted by an African American sales representative in the Chattanooga Branch ... and ... in any of the branch offices in the Southeast Region ... but only if the alleged race discrimination involved a claim against a branch manager who was under the supervision of Pope or White.”
“For the above stated reasons, I RECOMMEND3 that Defendant's motion for dismissal and sanctions [Doc. 53] be DENIED”
“it is RECOMMENDED that Holloway's Section 2254 habeas corpus petition [Doc. No. 3] be DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“I RECOMMEND1 as follows: 1. That the joint motion for approval of settlement [Doc. 19] be GRANTED; 2. That the settlement with respect to Plaintiff's FLSA claim be APPROVED as a fair and reasonable compromise of bona fide issues of law and fact”
“In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18] be granted in part and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 23] be denied. ... plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18] is GRANTED IN PART and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 23] is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision denying benefits is REVERSED AND REMANDED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Her docket spans a full generalist magistrate caseload across two decades: Social Security disability appeals (both her own consent-jurisdiction decisions and referred R&Rs), prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, employment discrimination (Title VII, FLSA), personal-injury and products-liability removals and diversity suits, general contract disputes, and, as a duty/referral magistrate, criminal complaints, search warrants, detention hearings, and plea colloquies.
- A products-liability personal-injury case (Edge v. The Legends at White Oak) shows her presiding over a fully-consented civil case through summary judgment and a pretrial sanctions/motion-in-limine ruling before it settled on the eve of trial.
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.
A historical record
Judge Lee no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.