William E. Duffin
How Judge Duffin rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Duffin
William E. Duffin is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, based in Milwaukee. The court reappointed him to an eight-year term effective March 28, 2022.
Judge Duffin's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Duffin, 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
No paper courtesy copies are normally needed unless chambers requests them.
“I generally do not need paper copies of any filings. If there is some reason I need you to provide a document in paper format my staff will contact you and request it.”
Motions
Ask for court action by motion even when all parties agree, rather than by letter, notice or stipulation.
“If you want the court to do anything, file a motion, not a letter, notice, or stipulation. This helps ensure that the electronic filing system properly directs the filing. If a request for court action is not filed as a ‘motion,’ court action on your request may be delayed. Parties should file a motion even if they are jointly asking the court to do something.”
Discovery
For a discovery dispute, file a motion to request a telephonic conference; file a motion to compel if seeking a ruling and fees.
“If a party believes that a telephonic conference with me will be helpful in avoiding the need to file a formal discovery motion, the party is invited to file a motion requesting a telephonic conference regarding the dispute. However, parties should be aware that my role in such a conference will be largely to assist the parties in agreeing to a resolution. If a party wants me to rule on a dispute (and award attorney’s fees and expenses as a result) the party must file a motion to compel.”
Sealing
Publicly file a redacted version and seal only the confidential portions of a document.
“any party seeking to seal any document must ensure that only the confidential portions of that document are withheld from public view. For example, a document that contains confidential sections generally should not be sealed in its entirety. Rather, a redacted document should be publicly filed and an un- redacted version filed under seal.”
Sealing
Serve sealed documents on other parties in paper form because parties do not receive them electronically.
“If a document is sealed, it must be served upon other parties in paper format. Parties do not receive sealed documents electronically.”
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 Duffin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Wisconsin products-liability case, Duffin declined to import the contract-specification defense into state law after predicting that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would reject it under the state's strict-liability doctrine.
“the Wisconsin Supreme Court would hold that it does not. The Wisconsin Supreme Court was clear – strict liability means strict liability.”
A party relying on an implied software license must establish its scope; evidence that some use was permitted does not establish that every later use was authorized.
“precluding the court from granting summary judgment in CompuClaim’s favor with respect to this affirmative defense or in Empire’s favor with respect to its copyright infringement claim.”
In the Dassey habeas decision, Duffin assessed investigators' repeated assurances together with the petitioner's youth, intellectual limitations, and lack of an adult supporter when finding the confession involuntary. The Seventh Circuit later reversed the writ grant.
“These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
In Severson’s FMLA case, Duffin denied the employer’s summary judgment motion because evidence of problems with its leave reporting system left a factual dispute about interference with leave.
“Because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether Prudential’s system discouraged Severson from taking FMLA leave,”
Procedural preferences
In Kroening's False Claims Act suit, Duffin permitted amendment of the complaint in the interest of justice.
“In the interest of justice, Kroening should be permitted to amend his complaint.”
For disability claims seeking damages, failure to provide the requested accommodation is not enough by itself; the record must support deliberate indifference by an official able to address the alleged discrimination.
“when she requested one does not, without more, suggest deliberate indifference.”
When a response to a motion clarified the parties and claims, he denied a request for a more definite statement. The defendants did not rebut the clarification in reply, leaving no need to order another pleading.
“the plaintiffs’ response clarifies who is bringing what claims and that the plaintiffs are not pursuing the claims of which the defendants were concerned, making a more definite statement unnecessary.”
In Hinzman’s prisoner case, Duffin denied an exhaustion motion after finding that the inmate complaint itself described the pain the defendant said had not been reported.
“Heggeseth’s argument that inmate complaint WRC-2024-15030 did not notify WRC that Heggeseth’s comments caused Hinzman unnecessary pain is contradicted by the inmate complaint itself.”
Cautions
Duffin expects arguments in the body of a brief rather than in footnotes, and has expressly described a footnote as an inappropriate way to present an argument.
“never an appropriate means for presenting an argument”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to the findings in this Decision and Order, Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration as against Plaintiff Williams is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration as against Plaintiff Walker is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Plaintiff Walker's proceedings is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion of Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to dismiss the first amended complaint (ECF No. 50) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that relator Kurt Kroening may file a second amended complaint not later than February 5, 2016.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Symmetry’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim of negligent design is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Symmetry’s motion for summary judgment is denied in all other respects.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' stipulated motion to dismiss CompuClaim's counterclaims (ECF No. 214) is granted. Accordingly, Empire's motion for summary judgment with respect to CompuClaim's counterclaims is moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Empire's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 162) is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as unopposed with respect to the duration of the License Agreement. Addendum B extended the original term of three years to a term of five years. It is denied as to all of Empire's other claims against CompuClaim.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CompuClaim's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 165) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Children's Hospital and Health System, Inc. and Children's Hospital of Wisconsin is granted with respect to Claims 1 (Americans with Disabilities Act), 2 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act), and 4 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) of Alissa Juech's amended complaint. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions in limine (ECF Nos. 34, 35) are dismissed as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the City of Hartford as a party is denied as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brendan Dassey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. The respondent shall release Dassey from custody unless, within 90 days of the date of this decision, the State initiates proceedings to retry him.”
“The United States' motion to strike will be granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Burns's ‘Motion for Settlement & Release of Interest’ (ECF No. 16) is denied .”
“summary judgment (ECF No. 155) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth”
“summary judgment (ECF No. 163) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth”
“(ECF No. 166) is denied in its entirety.”
“for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No court-wide grant rate is asserted. Duffin's assigned docket includes many criminal warrant and seizure matters alongside consent civil cases, so the available sample does not support a general merits tendency.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Wisconsin, not for Judge Duffin: 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 | 1,062 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 137 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 879 | 6.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 36 | 13.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 22.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,062 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 982 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,028 | 8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,065 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,134 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,184 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,253 | 6.9 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 Duffin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Duffin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Duffin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace