S. Kate Vaughan
How Judge Vaughan rules, drawn from 41 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Vaughan
S. Kate Vaughan has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Washington since May 2021. She earned a law degree from the University of Washington in 2004. Before joining the bench, she practiced commercial litigation and served as an assistant United States attorney in Seattle.
Judge Vaughan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Vaughan, 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
Discovery
Make reasonable efforts for all parties to join a call requesting a telephone discovery motion.
“The moving party must make reasonable efforts to have all parties to the discovery dispute participate in contacting the Court to request a telephonic motion.”
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).
- Amended Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Materials Related to Cooperation ↗
- Exhibit Retention Procedures ↗
- Availability and Redaction Policies for Electronically Filed Transcripts ↗
- Social Security Cases ↗
- Immigration Habeas Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ↗
- Amended Provisions for Electronic Case Filing ↗
How Judge Vaughan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Roberts appeal, the claimant obtained remand by showing that the ALJ failed to investigate and account for a distinct line of evidence concerning sleep-related impairments. Judge Vaughan treated the omission as harmful because it also affected the medical-opinion and testimony analyses.
“The ALJ failed to adequately develop the record and impermissibly ignored parts of the evidence by not considering whether Plaintiff had a sleep-related impairment at step two. ... This was error.”
In the Morcos habeas case, Vaughan ordered a bond hearing after finding that the long detention, likely additional delay, and confinement conditions favored the petitioner under the fact-specific prolonged-detention analysis.
“The Court therefore finds that Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged and Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.”
Procedural preferences
In Brian J. C. v. Commissioner of Social Security, she affirmed the agency after finding that the claimant summarized evidence without developing an argument showing harmful legal error.
“summarizing facts without providing analysis or legal argument is not enough to demonstrate harmful error.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION by Hon. S. Kate Vaughan. ... JUDGMENT BY COURT: By Order of the Court, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's final decision and REMANDS the matter for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's final decision and REMANDS the matter for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision in regard to Plaintiff's applications for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings.”
“it is ORDERED that Commissioner's decision in regard to Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act be REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for a new hearing and a new decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), leaving the Commissioner's decision regarding Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act undisturbed.”
“the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.”
“the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's final decision and REMANDS the matter for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.”
“the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's final decision and REMANDS the matter for a finding of disability under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's final decision and REMANDS the matter for a finding of disability.”
“the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.”
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 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle), not for Judge Vaughan: 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 | 2,877 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 684 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,159 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 27.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 25.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,877 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,639 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,594 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,303 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,703 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,340 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,536 | 7.6 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 Vaughan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vaughan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vaughan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace