Cheryl A. Eifert
Judge Eifert no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Eifert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In denying a defendant's motion to keep environmental survey data confidential, she reasoned that data prepared to satisfy regulatory-compliance obligations (not developed for a competitive business purpose) does not qualify as protectable confidential commercial information, and that a mere assertion of 'competitive advantage' without a specific, articulated showing of harm fails to establish good cause for a protective order.
“Mr. Willson does not explain the nature of the ‘competitive advantage’ resulting from the surveys and, more importantly, provides no support for a claim that Alex Energy would suffer serious harm to its competitive and financial position if the data was released.”
She applies the Fourth Circuit's liberal Rule 15 policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, granting a pro se prisoner's motion to amend and add defendants as to each proposed defendant whose personal involvement was plausibly alleged, while declining to add defendants the complaint tied only to a supervisory or official-capacity theory without an underlying constitutional violation.
“This liberal rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities.”
Procedural preferences
In her large consent Social Security docket, when the Commissioner and claimant jointly or unopposedly move to remand a benefits denial for further administrative proceedings, she typically enters the remand the same day or within days of the motion, without extended briefing -- a fast, low-friction disposition for the most common motion on her docket.
“MEMORANDUM OPINION granting the defendant's MOTION for Remand; the Court REMANDS Plaintiff's case to the Commissioner pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the unopposed motion.”
Cautions
She will hold parties to their discovery obligations: she granted a sanctions motion after finding a party's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition costs were only partly reasonable, deducting fees for a redundant second attorney and an unsubstantiated document-copying charge rather than awarding the full amount requested.
“Overall, deducting $2,800 in redundant attorney's fees and $45.22 in lunch expenses related to the 30(b)(6) deposition, as well as another $6,000 in attorney's fees related to reviewing the pipeline file from the claimed total of $19,493.32, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of Ten Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars and Ten Cents ($10,648.10).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“After a careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Court finds that the Commissioner's decision IS supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, by Judgment Order entered this day, the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this matter is DISMISSED from the docket of this Court.”
“Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 33) is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 31, 34) are DENIED”
“the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel and GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for sanctions as set forth below”
“the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of Ten Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars and Ten Cents ($10,648.10). Defendants are ORDERED to pay Plaintiff this amount within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion, in part, as it applies to some of the proposed defendants. The remaining defendants are addressed in the Proposed Findings & Recommendations filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. ... For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 33.0 days (N = 17).
Consistent with her role as a Huntington-division consent-jurisdiction magistrate judge, the bulk of her caseload was Social Security disability appeals decided under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) party consent. She also handled general civil matters referred to her for discovery management or decided by full party consent -- including consumer-protection, insurance, ERISA, and real-property disputes -- discovery in multidistrict products-liability proceedings, and criminal duty-magistrate matters such as search-warrant and pen-register applications, initial appearances, and detention hearings.
A historical record
Judge Eifert no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.