Education: 1991: J.D., Northeastern University School of Law; 1984, A.B., cum laude, Harvard University.

Career in Brief: 2010–present: US District Court for the District of New Hampshire (2013–present: US District Judge; 2010–2013: US Magistrate Judge); 2003–2010: New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office, Disciplinary Counsel; 1995–2003: New Hampshire Public Defender Program, Staff Attorney; 1994–1995: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable A. David Mazzone; 1993–1994: McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, P.A., Litigation Associate; 1991–1993: Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Norman H. Stahl (1992–1993: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; 1991–1992: US District Court for the District of New Hampshire).

What do you enjoy most about your role as a federal judge? I most enjoy the public service component of my job. Taking the bench every day is a high honor. The courtroom is a public space, and it belongs to the people. Judges exist to serve the public, not the other way around. The intellectual challenges of the job are certainly rich and varied, but on a day-to-day basis, I most enjoy interacting and communicating with members of the public and treating people who appear before me with respect and fairness.

Presiding over naturalization ceremonies is perhaps the single most enjoyable proceeding for a federal judge. At these ceremonies, the judge has the honor of bestowing US citizenship on a large group of people (typically 80 to 90 in our court) who come from many different countries across the globe. It is moving to look out at the faces of these new Americans, many in tears, having fled war-torn countries in search of peace and opportunity. All of them have worked hard and are so proud to take the Oath of Allegiance, say the Pledge of Allegiance, and sing the Star-Spangled Banner for the first time as US citizens. I would suggest to any American feeling a lack of patriotism that there is no better cure than to attend a naturalization ceremony at the nearest federal court.

You served as a magistrate judge for the District of New Hampshire for several years before being confirmed as a district judge. How has that experience shaped your approach to civil cases? In my three-and-a-half years as a magistrate judge, I resolved numerous discovery disputes for referring judges through formal motion practice, and I learned rather quickly that this approach can waste time and money. As a result, I prefer to handle discovery disputes in my cases through an informal process. If the parties agree, I encourage them to resolve their disputes over the telephone. Where the parties prefer to make formal discovery motions, I will expedite resolution by scheduling a hearing as soon as the motion is ripe and, if feasible, issuing an oral ruling from the bench.

What impact do you foresee social media and other technological developments having on discovery and trial practice in general? Technological advances have caused a communication revolution at all levels of the legal profession. As long as technology continues to develop and change at such a rapid pace, the legal profession will perpetually be in “catch-up” mode.

Social media has already had an explosive effect on discovery, as almost every case now involves a search for evidence on social media platforms. Lawyers must become knowledgeable about these different platforms so that they can prosecute and defend cases effectively, and some of that education might come from unconventional sources. For example, if you are unfamiliar with Snapchat, just ask the nearest teenager to show you how she uses it.

Lawyers also need to keep up with technological changes to avoid the ethical pitfalls that lurk behind many basic forms of modern communication. For example, failing to understand how metadata is embedded in digital documents can lead to disclosures of confidential communications. Additionally, technology has fundamentally altered the concepts of privacy and confidentiality, which are central to the legal profession.

Finally, on a practical level, lawyers who are unfamiliar with basic advances in courtroom technology, such as software and tablets that allow them to display and manipulate documentary evidence, are at a distinct disadvantage when communicating with a jury during trial.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? Be prepared to go off script. I review the entire record before every hearing and typically I have a sense of where I am headed on the various legal questions. My questions are often posed in a form such as the following: “I am inclined to deny your motion for [several stated reasons]. Persuade me that I am wrong.” A lawyer who is well-prepared appreciates the transparency and welcomes the opportunity to persuade me to rule in his favor.

How should counsel prepare for Rule 16 and Rule 26(f) conferences, particularly in light of the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? Rather than simply “going through the motions,” counsel should focus on the purposes of these conferences as summarized in Rules 16 and 26(f). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure encourage efficiency, simplicity, and creativity.

As suggested by the recent amendments, lawyers should include a provision in their proposed discovery orders requiring a conference with the court before filing a discovery motion. I would also like to see counsel entertain at their initial planning meeting the possibility of placing their cases on a “rocket docket,” so that discovery is accelerated and trial occurs within six months of that conference. Too many federal litigators are complacent about the speed of litigation and assume all cases take at least a year to prepare for trial. In many less complicated cases, lawyers could be ready for trial in six months or less.

Additionally, lawyers would be well-advised to consider creative discovery schedules that might expedite a settlement or trial. For example, although early depositions are not always feasible, at times a limited deposition of a crucial witness early in a case can push the proceeding toward resolution or move it in an altogether different direction for trial. In short, lawyers should think outside the box in formulating their proposed discovery orders.

What is your biggest courtroom pet peeve? Lawyers who waste the jury’s time. Sometimes, a delay to deal with a legal matter is unavoidable in a jury trial. However, truly unanticipated, delay-inducing moments are rare, and well-prepared lawyers can avoid lengthy sidebars and other disruptions. To help advance trial proceedings and deter interruptions, I include a statement in all of my final pretrial orders that advises lawyers to raise with me any legal issues that can be resolved outside the presence of the jury during breaks, or before or after court sessions. I also encourage lawyers to file motions in limine and bring legal disputes to my attention in advance of trial so that I can dispose of these issues, or at least start thinking about them, before we empanel a jury.

Which current or former US Supreme Court Justice do you most admire, and why? As a historical figure, I admire Justice Robert H. Jackson for his dissent in Korematsu v. United States and his role as the lead US prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. In Korematsu, he dissented from the majority opinion that upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. After the war, he took a leave of absence from the Supreme Court to serve as the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, where his opening and closing statements are still remembered for their force and persuasive power.