Daphne A. Oberg
How Judge Oberg rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Oberg
Daphne A. Oberg has served as a United States magistrate judge for the District of Utah since May 2020. She earned a bachelor’s degree from Westminster College and a law degree from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law.
Judge Oberg's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Oberg, 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
Email an editable Word proposed order directly to chambers as well as attaching it to the motion.
“In addition to attaching a copy of the order to the motion, a copy of all proposed orders must be directly e-mailed to chambers at the following address: [email protected]. Proposed orders e-mailed to chambers must be editable and submitted in Word format.”
Filing
Courtesy copies are unnecessary.
“Courtesy Copies are not required.”
Discovery
If Judge Oberg enters her discovery management order, confer and file a joint fact discovery status report 28 days before that phase closes.
“No later than twenty-eight days before the close of fact discovery, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report”
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 Oberg decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a post-judgment matter, Judge Oberg recommended granting an application for a charging order; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“Judge Oberg subsequently issued a Report and Recommendations on June 13, 2024, recommending Plaintiff's Application [for a charging order] be granted. ... Judge Oberg's Report is ADOPTED and Defendant's Application is GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
In an in forma pauperis screening order, Judge Oberg dismissed an amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
“His Amended Complaint ... is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).”
In an insurance-sale dispute, Judge Oberg denied four unopposed sealing motions because generic confidentiality assertions did not overcome the presumption that court records remain public.
“they base their motions on general assertions of confidentiality over documents which have been publicly available for some time.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court fully agrees with the analysis in Magistrate Judge Oberg's Report and Recommendation. ... His Amended Complaint, therefore, is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). ... the court ... dismisses Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 6] with prejudice”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied because he fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 56 ... and he fails to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on any of his claims. ... denies his motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 207].”
“The court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 6) and DENIES Mr. Leshinsky's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). The court gives Mr. Leshinsky thirty days to pay the filing fee, or the court will dismiss this case without prejudice.”
“the court ADOPTS Judge Oberg's R&R, GRANTS Mr. Ramirez-Medina's motion to dismiss, and directs the Clerk of Court to dismiss this action without prejudice.”
“Defendants' Objection to Judge Oberg's Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED. Judge Oberg's Report is ADOPTED and Defendant's Application is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons explained below, the court grants the petition.”
“The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”
“The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”
“the undersigned recommends the district judge deny their motion for a temporary restraining order.”
“Because Mr. Tharp and Ms. Luby have not shown appointment of counsel is warranted, the motion is denied.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS the district judge (1) grant in part the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings,”
“(2) deny Mr. Crossett’s motion for preliminary injunction,”
“Because Mr. Soqui no longer works for Lucid and the documents sought are relevant, the motion is denied.”
“The Kuendig nonparties are awarded the expenses they incurred in producing documents, but they have not established entitlement to deposition costs beyond statutorily prescribed fees.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Salt Lake City magistrate (since 2020-05-01) carrying a heavy civil caseload.
- Two streams: (1) directly-assigned / 636(c) CONSENT civil matters she decides herself, prominently Social Security disability appeals; and (2) 636(b) referral matters (pro se / IFP screening, prisoner civil-rights, post-judgment collection, contract/fraud) on which she issues Reports and Recommendations reviewed by the district judges.
- Composition only; not a grant rate.
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 | 1 |
| 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 Utah, not for Judge Oberg: 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 | 1,120 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 343 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 764 | 9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 3 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 59 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,120 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,141 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,035 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 12.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,128 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 951 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,085 | 9.7 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 Oberg with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Oberg, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Oberg's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace