Lindsey R. Vaala
How Judge Vaala rules, drawn from 4 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Vaala decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment, she required evidence that premises defendants actually knew or should have known of the specific hazardous condition; an unrelated prior incident involving another fixture did not establish notice.
“there is no evidence establishing when the allegedly hazardous condition occurred”
When assessing a subpoena for identifying information, she separated defenses to ultimate liability from the Rule 45 grounds for quashing the subpoena.
“they are not grounds for quashing or vacating an otherwise proper subpoena”
Her premises-liability decisions turn on the specific notice evidence. Unlike Whittier, O'Brien survived summary judgment because the surveillance footage could support competing conclusions about how long the spill was visible and whether nearby employees should have detected it.
“a reasonable factfinder reviewing the footage could determine that the liquid pooling on the ground should have been discovered by Defendant.”
Procedural preferences
She enforces scheduling-order diligence when a late amendment would reopen discovery, delay trial preparation, and expand the litigation with claims based on facts available earlier.
“Plaintiff has not exercised the appropriate diligence in seeking leave to amend the complaint to add the proposed claims, the factual basis for which it has known for months.”
She treated Local Civil Rule 56(B)'s admission mechanism as discretionary where a nonmovant's imperfectly formatted response still identified disputed facts and supplied supporting evidence.
“Because Plaintiff's response brief does not strictly comply with Rule 56(B) ... the Court finds that Plaintiff partially complied with Local Civil Rule 56(B). Therefore, the Court will not deem admitted the facts”
Cautions
The docket sample is concentrated in one unusually motion-heavy trade-secrets case, so its discovery and sealing counts should not be treated as a general tendency.
“The undersigned has heard numerous discovery related disputes in the matter”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Defendant Transurban (USA) Operations, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Defendant Knight Facilities Management's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 22) is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED.”
“the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 215).”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The enumerated docket is dominated by criminal duty matters; civil outcomes below are limited to matters where the entry or opinion expressly identifies Vaala as the signer.
Draft for Judge Vaala with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vaala, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vaala's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace