To safeguard the rule against ex parte communications, and to further the public’s interest in pending court proceedings, Judge Oliver prefers parties and their counsel to communicate case-related inquiries through the docket, rather than through phone calls or emails to chambers, regardless of the nature of the inquiry. To that end, Judge Oliver does not accept informal letters or communications from litigants (or from others, pertaining to any case), and asks that the Clerk’s Office return such submissions to the sender, without review thereof.

Standing Order to Litigants, Regarding Letters to the Court

Chambers copies for civil case filings by counsel in excess of 25 pages

For any case in which a party is represented by counsel, counsel must promptly mail or deliver to chambers a single courtesy hard copy of any filing, including exhibits, attachments, or supporting memoranda of law, if the filing (taken together with those exhibits, attachments, or memoranda) exceeds 25 pages in length.

This requirement for a chambers copy applies only to filings by counsel for represented parties and does not apply to self-represented litigants. Nor does this rule apply to filings in criminal cases.

Chambers copies may be printed double-sided. All chambers copies should be printed from the docket and should bear the ECF header of the Court’s electronic filing system. All chambers copies must be properly ordered and tabbed. Any chambers copy that cannot be securely stapled must be placed in a three-ring binder or bound in some other fashion on the left side (e.g., Velo bound or GBC bound).

Formatting of Motions and Memoranda of Law

The parties are reminded that pursuant to the District’s Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures, memoranda of law and other documents filed electronically should be submitted in PDF format and be text searchable via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology.

Counsel need not attach as exhibits unreported cases cited in a memorandum of law unless the case is not available on Westlaw.

Motions for Extension of Time

At any point, when filing a motion for extension of time or a motion for continuance in criminal cases, Judge Oliver requires parties to indicate the following: (1) any pending state criminal cases involving the defendant, (2) the nature of the charges in the pending state criminal case, (3) the date of the next state court proceeding and whether it is scheduled for sentencing , and (4) whether there are any identified victims in a state proceeding. If there are no pending state criminal cases involving the defendant, the parties shall indicate so.

Judge Oliver requires that any motions for extension of time be filed strictly in accordance with D. Conn. Local Rule 7(b), which requires that any motion be filed at least three business days in advance of the due date; that it reflect the opposing party’s position on the motion; that it indicate the number of motions for extension of time the movant has previously filed with respect to the same time limitation; and that it establish particularized good cause for the extension request. Motions for extension of time that do not comply with D. Conn. Local Rule 7(b) may be denied.

If counsel requires an expedited decision on a motion to extend time, he or she must supply Judge Oliver’s chambers with a courtesy copy of the motion and a cover letter explaining the need for an expedited decision.

Settlement

Judge Oliver encourages the parties to discuss settlement as soon as possible. Nearly all civil cases settle, and in most cases, the Court will at some point refer the parties to mediation with a U.S. Magistrate Judge to explore the potential for settlement. The sooner that occurs, the less expensive the case will be for the parties. The Court understands that sometimes it is necessary to conduct some discovery before the parties can engage in a productive mediation. In those cases, the Court encourages the parties to discuss exchanging limited discovery, perhaps including one deposition by each party and the written discovery necessary to prepare for that deposition, before proceeding to mediation. But the parties may begin settlement discussions at any time, either by themselves or with the assistance of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Should the parties wish at any time to be referred to a Magistrate Judge for mediation, they need only so indicate to the Court by filing a joint statement making such a request (which may be as short as a single sentence), or by filing a statement by one party representing in good faith that counsel for all parties have conferred and agree that such a referral would be appropriate.

26(f) Reports

The Rule 26(f) Report should provide the Court with a meaningful overview of the case and should serve as a vehicle for parties to consider the factual and legal nature and basis for the claims and defenses asserted or to be asserted, the possibilities of settlement, and the desired discovery. Judge Oliver independently determines whether a scheduling conference with the Court is necessary, but he will consider whether the parties have requested a scheduling conference in their Rule 26(f) Report.

Provided counsel are reasonable and efficient in the selection of deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions, the Rule 26(f) Report will usually serve as the basis for the initial scheduling order in the case. Generally, Judge Oliver prefers that the parties propose a schedule that will allow for the close of all discovery within twelve months from the date of the filing of the Rule 26(f) Report. If the parties believe that more than twelve months is required to complete discovery, then they should explain why additional time is needed. Absent an explanation from the parties why more than twelve months is needed, Judge Oliver may enter an order to complete discovery at the end of twelve months even if the parties have requested additional time. Once a scheduling order is entered, Judge Oliver expects parties to follow the schedule and will modify it only upon a showing of good cause.

Rule 26(f) Reports must include actual deadline dates, even if such deadlines are tied to earlier events in a case.

Discovery

The filing of a motion to dismiss shall not result in a stay of discovery or extend the time for completing discovery absent extraordinary circumstances and the filing and approval of a motion to stay discovery.

Judge Oliver may decide discovery disputes himself or may refer them to a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Even after a discovery dispute has been briefed, Judge Oliver expects the parties to continue to attempt to resolve the dispute themselves prior to Court intervention.

All interim discovery deadlines may be amended by agreement of the parties without the Court's approval provided those amendments do not delay the deadline for completion of all discovery.

Dispositive Motions

In all cases except bankruptcy appeals, social security appeals, habeas cases, or cases in which a party is proceeding pro se, Judge Oliver requires parties to request a pre-filing conference before filing motions to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings, or for summary judgment.

To request a pre-filing conference, the moving party shall file and serve a detailed letter motion of no more than three (3) pages in length setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion and a proposed briefing schedule. All parties served with a pre-filing conference letter shall serve and file a letter response of no more than three (3) pages within five (5) business days from service of the moving party’s letter. Service of the letter motion within the time requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, or any other applicable filing or service deadline, shall constitute timely service of a motion made pursuant to those provisions. The moving party may not file a reply letter without leave of Court.

If the motion is for summary judgment under Rule 56, the moving party’s pre-filing conference letter must also include a preliminary copy of the Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Undisputed Facts. Non-moving parties shall have ten (10) business days to file a response letter and a preliminary copy of the Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Facts in Opposition to Summary Judgment. Parties are not required to file the evidence referenced in their preliminary Local Rule 56(a) statements.

The purpose of the requirement is to encourage lawyers to discuss the proposed motion in much the same way lawyers are now accustomed to discussing discovery disputes before submitting them to court. A request for a pre-filing conference regarding a proposed motion to dismiss should be made as soon as possible after service of the summons and complaint.

Attorney Affidavits

Judge Oliver does not require that documentary exhibits and deposition transcripts attached to dispositive motions be identified or authenticated via attorney affidavit. However, to the extent there is a known dispute as to the identification or authentication of any document, appropriate affidavits should be submitted.

Oral Arguments on Motions

Requests for oral argument should be made in accordance with Local Rule 7(a).

In deciding whether to hold oral argument, Judge Oliver gives strong consideration to whether the parties have so requested. If Judge Oliver concludes that oral argument would not be helpful, then he may rule on a dispositive motion without oral argument.

He does not have a motion day but hears oral arguments as his schedule permits. When Judge Oliver hears oral argument, he usually is an active questioner.

Judge Oliver ordinarily decides dispositive motions by means of a written ruling. Under some circumstances, however, the Court may issue an oral ruling from the bench following an oral argument on a motion. A copy of any oral ruling may be obtained by the parties from the court reporter

The Court encourages the practice of allowing junior members of the bar to argue motions that they helped to prepare. To facilitate this practice, Judge Oliver permits counsel to “split” the issues to be argued. That is, the Court will permit a second, more senior lawyer to argue as well if doing so will create an opportunity for a junior lawyer to participate.

Judge Oliver recognizes that the ultimate decision of who speaks on behalf of the client is for counsel or the client, not the Court.

Referral to Magistrate Judges

Judge Oliver may refer discovery motions to a Magistrate Judge and will refer settlement conferences to a Magistrate Judge upon request of the parties. Parties interested in referral for mediation or settlement conference should file a joint statement making such a request (which may be as short as a single sentence), or file a statement by one party representing in good faith that counsel for all parties have conferred and agree that such a referral would be appropriate.

Requests to Reschedule

Requests to reschedule scheduled court proceedings, including telephonic conferences, should be made by motion. Counsel should identify three (3) alternative dates on which counsel for all parties are available. When the motion is not filed jointly, counsel should indicate the position of the non-moving party.

Special Proceedings

Judge Oliver will not grant ex parte relief on motions for temporary restraining orders unless the movant can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. When a party seeks ex parte relief, Judge Oliver will usually ask that party’s attorney to try to reach the opposing party or its counsel by telephone. Motions for preliminary injunctions are scheduled for a telephone conference at an early opportunity to determine whether discovery is required and to encourage the parties to combine the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits. Motions for prejudgment remedies are often referred to a Magistrate Judge.

Change of Plea Hearings

Counsel are directed to meet and confer as necessary regarding the calculation of the Total Offense Level, Criminal History Category and Criminal History Score before finalizing the written plea agreement and providing it to the Court. Counsel may seek guidance from the United States Probation Office if there is uncertainty regarding the aforementioned calculations.

Counsel are directed to have a final copy of the written plea agreement emailed to the Courtroom Deputy at least three business days before the hearing date. Failure to abide by this rule may result in a continuance.

Policy on AI Research

Over time, legal research has changed for the better, moving from books to online databases. Now, attorneys and pro se litigants alike have begun to use artificial intelligence ("AI") to assist with legal research. The Court appreciates the reality that AI as a legal research tool is here to stay.

As with past changes in legal research, AI may ultimately prove a helpful tool to assist pro se litigants in bringing meritorious cases to the courts. AI may also allow attorneys to move more quickly through certain tasks, and thus to better assist their clients. But AI also presents risks: Namely, "hallucinated" cases or otherwise patently incorrect statements of law.

For these reasons, attorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court. Use of AI without verification of the accuracy of the information it generates–like any other shoddy research method from other sources or tools–implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the central purpose of which is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus to streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts. Rule 11 applies fully to actions filed by pro se litigants.

Therefore, all parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse. See generally Barteca Holdings LLC v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC, No. 26-CV-250 (VDO), 2026 WL 2253785 (D. Conn. Aug. 4, 2026); Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury, 827 F. Supp. 3d 294 (D. Conn. 2025); Cojom, v. Roblen, LLC, No. 23-CV-1669 (JCH), 2025 WL 3205930 (D. Conn. Nov. 17, 2025); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Broadcasting In-Person Proceedings

Judge Oliver does not allow remote public access to in-person proceedings, and the Court will not provide links or dial-in information to broadcasts of such proceedings. Members of the public are welcome to contact the Clerk’s Office for information on where to attend in-person proceedings.