Scott P. Klosterman
How Judge Klosterman rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Klosterman
Scott P. Klosterman has served as a United States magistrate judge for the District of Wyoming since 2024 and is based in Cheyenne. Before joining the bench, he practiced law in Wyoming and worked in the state public defender’s office. He earned his law degree from the University of Wyoming College of Law in 1996.
Judge Klosterman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Klosterman, 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.
- Rule 26(f) Conference Checklist ↗
- Case Management Plan ↗
- Guidelines for Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Bench Trials ↗
- Final Pretrial Order for Jury Trial ↗
- Final Pretrial Order for Bench Trial ↗
- Procedure for Direct Testimony by Written Statement ↗
Key rules
Trial
In a bench trial, the plaintiff files proposed findings and conclusions first, then the defendant responds.
“Plaintiff shall first serve and file proposed findings and conclusions. Defendant shall then”
Trial
Number proposed factual findings so the opposing party can admit or deny each sentence.
“the opposing parties will be able to admit or deny each separate sentence of the”
Trial
The defendant’s factual response must use the corresponding numbers from the plaintiff’s proposed findings.
“shall bear the same number as the corresponding sentence in Plaintiff=s narrative”
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 Klosterman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ranches of the West Inc. v. Intuit Inc., Klosterman compelled arbitration of claims concerning QuickBooks data. The company's bookkeeper had implied authority to accept the software license and its arbitration clause while administering the company's account.
“Christensen had the implied authority to agree to the QB728 license agreement and the arbitration clause contained therein. Accordingly, this Court finds Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration clause set forth in the terms and conditions of the QB728 license agreement.”
Procedural preferences
In McArtor v. Valsoft Corp., Klosterman denied a request to exclude the plaintiffs' damages expert. He found a sufficient basis for the opinions and treated the defendants' objections to the expert's assumptions, methodology, and selected data as matters affecting weight rather than admissibility.
“Defendants’ concerns with respect to the methodology, evidence, and data relied upon and not relied upon, go to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility.”
In Cubin v. Wyoming Governor, he stayed discovery while a qualified-immunity motion was pending. He expressly described staying all discovery in such matters as his general practice and found no sufficient reason to depart from it in that case.
“This Court’s general practice in such matters is to stay all discovery when a defendant asserts qualified immunity”
In one contract case, restricted access to complaint exhibits after both parties identified patient and commercial confidentiality interests.
“confidential and/or privileged information sufficient to outweigh the public’s common law right to access judicial records.”
Cautions
In McArtor v. Valsoft Corp., Klosterman denied a late motion to amend the complaint to add a cross-selling theory. He found the plaintiffs knew or should have known its basis earlier, had not obtained the defendants' consent to try it, and had not adequately explained the delay.
“the record clearly shows that Plaintiffs knew or should have known the basis for the amendment they now seek but failed to include such a theory in their Complaint and failed to seek amendment in a timely fashion thereafter.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based upon the preceding, the Court finds Mr. Lappen has met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.”
“Based upon the preceding, the Court finds that Rule 15(b)(1) is an inappropriate vehicle to amend the Complaint, Defendants did not expressly or impliedly consent to amendment under Rule 15(b)(2), and Plaintiffs have not provided an adequate explanation for their untimely Motion under Rule 15(a). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 82) is hereby DENIED.”
“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant shall arbitrate in accordance with the arbitration agreement attached to Defendant’s Motion as Exhibit 2.”
“Based upon the preceding, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all discovery in this matter is STAYED pending the resolution of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) (ECF No. 26).”
“Based upon the preceding, Defendants’ Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The eleven sampled matters include civil referrals, consent matters, directly assigned civil cases, a Rule 5 transfer matter, and petty-offense citations. Seven matters were terminated and four remained pending. Short petty-offense and Rule 5 durations should not be compared with contested civil litigation.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 3 | 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 District of Wyoming, not for Judge Klosterman: 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 | 240 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 74 | 4.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 70 | 5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 86 | 15.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 21.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 240 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 184 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 202 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 219 | 12 months |
| Sep 2021 | 210 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 189 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 195 | 8.9 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 Klosterman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Klosterman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Klosterman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace