Anita Marie Boor
How Judge Boor rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Boor
Anita M. Boor took the oath as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin on May 6, 2024. She succeeded Stephen L. Crocker and was assigned a share of the court's civil cases and referrals in other civil matters.
Judge Boor's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Boor, 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.
- Order Governing Final Pretrial Conference ↗
- Standing Order for Preliminary Pretrial Conferences with Magistrate Judge Anita M. Boor ↗
- Attachments to the Pretrial Conference Order in Cases Assigned to Magistrate Judge Boor ↗
- Procedures for Requesting a Hearing to Resolve a Deposition Dispute ↗
Key rules
Motions
Dispositive motions are due five or six months before trial and before discovery closes, which usually occurs six weeks before trial.
“The court requires dispositive motions to be filed not later than five or six months before trial and prior to the close of discovery, which usually ends six weeks before trial.”
Motions
Motions in limine must be filed and served by the submission deadline for the final pretrial conference.
“The parties must file and serve any and all motions in limine not later than the submission deadline for the final pretrial conference.”
Motions
For summary judgment, the court will not search the record for facts or evidence that a party did not identify with a properly supported proposed finding.
“The court will not search the record for facts or evidence.”
Discovery
Before asking the court to resolve a deposition dispute, parties must make one last good-faith effort to resolve it without court intervention.
“Make one last good faith effort to resolve the dispute without court intervention.”
Conferences
Parties must jointly file a report one week before the preliminary pretrial conference addressing the case, issues, schedule, discovery plan, and other matters in the order.
“Not later than one week before the preliminary pretrial conference, the parties shall jointly file a report addressing the following points.”
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).
- In Re: Standing Order Governing the Use and Submission of Electronic Evidence (Administrative Order 434) ↗
- In Re: Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Administrative Order 453) ↗
- Amended General Rules for Filing Documents Under Seal (Administrative Order 460) ↗
How Judge Boor decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lavasseur v. Ashland County, she allowed the plaintiff to withdraw deemed admissions caused by unsigned responses, finding that the defendants knew substantive responses were forthcoming and were not prejudiced by withdrawal.
“These would be fair and persuasive points but for the fact that defendants knew from counsel's July 21, 2025, email that plaintiff intended to provide substantive responses, and did provide those substantive responses, albeit unsigned. ... the prudent approach was to ask for it. Curtailing deposition questions and relying on technically admitted requests at the summary judgment stage was not reasonable under these circumstances.”
On a Title VII religious-accommodation claim she holds that an employer satisfies its duty by offering any reasonable accommodation that eliminates the conflict with the employee's religious practice, it need not be the employee's preferred option, and that once such an alternative is offered the statutory inquiry ends. An employee who objects to the alternative only on secular grounds cannot defeat summary judgment.
“Once the employer has offered an alternative that reasonably accommodates the employee's religious needs . . . 'the statutory inquiry is at an end[.]' ... At bottom, Romzek has not created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Baldwin met its lawful duty to propose reasonable accommodations. The court therefore GRANTS summary judgment in Baldwin's favor on Romzek's Title VII claims.”
Procedural preferences
In Midaaswi, LLC v. United Analytics LLC, Boor denied a request for alternative service without prejudice. The plaintiff had not tried the company's registered agent or exhausted other leads reasonably calculated to permit personal service, and could renew the request after doing so.
“Reasonable diligence requires a plaintiff to ‘exhaust . . . any leads or information reasonably calculated to make personal service possible.’”
In United States v. Robinson, Boor denied the defendant’s motion to compel a state-court clerk to produce warrant records because the federal court could not order the state court to provide them; she directed him to request the records from the state clerk.
“The federal court system respects the sovereignty of state courts, meaning that this federal court cannot order the state court to produce the requested documents.”
In United States v. Bordian, she granted a request for witness interview reports after reviewing them in chambers, but stayed production and ordered further briefing because the reports contained classified information.
“So, I will GRANT defendant’s motion. But there is a complication. The reports also contain classified information, the production and use of which is governed by the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. App. 3 § 1 et seq., so I will STAY production of the documents and ORDER supplemental briefing on how to proceed.”
In a civil case with parallel criminal charges, Judge Boor paused discovery directed to one defendant for 90 days while leaving other discovery and all case deadlines in place.
“Discovery remains open for all other parties, and all case deadlines remain in place for all parties, including Seargent Edington.”
In one prisoner civil case, Judge Boor told the parties to confer before bringing discovery disputes to court and denied sanctions where the record showed miscommunication instead of deliberate falsehood.
“they must try to work out discovery issues like this one amongst themselves before seeking court intervention.”
Cautions
In Jennings v. Hatfield, Boor granted a discovery motion in part after the plaintiff put specific psychological conditions at issue. She allowed a two-year lookback for mental-health records as proportionate to those claims while narrowing broader requested categories.
“In light of plaintiff’s claims of specific psychological harms, defendants’ request to review plaintiff’s mental health records reaching back two years before her arrest is a proportional request for relevant records that is not unduly burdensome on plaintiff given that defendants will obtain the records from plaintiff’s providers.”
In Romzek v. Baldwin Area Medical Center, Inc., she granted summary judgment on an age-discrimination claim because the plaintiff's speculation about the employer's motive for hiring a younger surgeon did not create a genuine factual dispute.
“summary judgment is the ‘put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events.’ ... Romzek's speculation about Baldwin's motives in hiring a younger surgeon is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact for a jury to resolve.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (dkt. #9) is DENIED.”
“Judge Boor granted defendant's motion for retroactive extension and recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment”
“Plaintiff's motion for evidentiary relief, Dkt. 59, is GRANTED in line with this opinion.”
“Defendant Gregory P. Robinson, Jr.'s request for copies of filings, Dkt. 54, is GRANTED. The court will send him with this order a copy of the docket for his review along with copies of all of his filings to date.”
“Defendant's motion to compel, Dkt. 55, is DENIED.”
“I have determined that they do contain some discoverable information. So, I will GRANT defendant's motion. But there is a complication. The reports also contain classified information, the production and use of which is governed by the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) ... so I will STAY production of the documents and ORDER supplemental briefing on how to proceed.”
Following a conviction, Boor directed that the defendant's passport be transferred to the U.S. Department of State and not reissued during supervision without probation approval. The administrative order did not resolve a party motion.
“For these reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to its renewal if necessary after plaintiff has exhausted its full range of options.”
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Marcin Staszak’s motion for guidance, Dkt. 68, is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ motion to compel, Dkt. 70, is GRANTED in part as follows:”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as set forth in that motion.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as set forth in that motion.”
“Having reviewed the materials submitted in support of the motion and hearing no objection from either party, the court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiff is awarded fees and expenses in the amount of $7,000.00.”
“In light of this order, plaintiff’s original motion for fees, Dkt. 13, is denied as moot.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 40, is adopted, and defendant’s motion to suppress, Dkt. 22, is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 27 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 180 days (N = 1).
The reviewed assignments include intellectual-property, insurance, contract, benefits, product-liability, civil-rights, Social Security, immigration, and criminal pretrial matters. The mix is descriptive rather than a complete caseload census.
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 |
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 Western District of Wisconsin, not for Judge Boor: 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 | 545 | 6.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 188 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 169 | 6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 174 | 13.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 26.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 545 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 526 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 614 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 633 | 10 months |
| Sep 2021 | 675 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 707 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 657 | 7.8 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 Boor with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boor, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Boor's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace