William B. Porter
How Judge Porter rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Porter
William B. Porter has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia since February 2024. Before joining the court, he clerked in the Fairfax County Circuit Court and practiced law with Blankingship & Keith.
Judge Porter's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Porter'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).
How Judge Porter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In habeas discovery, Porter requires specific, substantial allegations connecting the requested material to a viable claim; speculation and broadly framed requests do not establish good cause.
“Before discovery may be ordered, petitioners must make specific and substantial allegations about the information requested and how that information would entitle them to relief.”
In Hudson v. Dunn, a wage-law default proceeding, Porter examined the requested damages because a default did not establish the amount owed.
“Even so, the court does not automatically consider as admitted the amount of damages.”
In Froelke v. Montgomery Mutual Insurance Company, Porter compelled appraisal after the insurer accepted coverage for the fire and disputed the extent of damage to the insured property.
“The Court disagrees, as Montgomery Mutual confuses coverage for a loss with the amount of a loss.”
Procedural preferences
In Black v. Clarke, Porter rejected the second discovery request as overly broad and akin to a fishing expedition for facts.
“This second request for discovery is also overly broad and more like a ‘fishing expedition’ for facts.”
In Raja v. Asset Recovery Solutions, he narrowed a third-party subpoena to protect unrelated individuals while preserving the request's evidentiary purpose.
“This modification adequately protects unrelated individuals while preserving the subpoena’s legitimate evidentiary purpose.”
In Murdock v. Huel Limited, Porter denied default after the plaintiff’s mailing receipt failed to show that a summons and complaint reached the defendant in the United Kingdom.
“A label describing the contents only as ‘documents’ does not allow the Court to find that Defendant received the summons and Complaint.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court recommends that Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment against Lynnway T&T, Dunn, and Gossard be GRANTED.”
“The undersigned recommends entry of default judgment for Plaintiffs and against Defendants.”
“ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery and for a Court Order to Obtain Documents is DENIED.”
“the undersigned recommends entry of default judgment for Plaintiff and against the Foreign Defendants.”
“The undersigned recommends entry of default judgment for Zayo and against SFO.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) is DENIED”
“The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 16.)”
“The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motions as to the subpoena directed to Costco.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 9.)”
“For these reasons, the Court previously GRANTED Plaintiffs’ Motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Only entries expressly identifying Porter as the signer are included in the motion outcomes. The sample also includes a search-warrant proceeding.
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 |
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 Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Porter: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Porter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Porter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Porter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace