Sunil R. Harjani
How Judge Harjani decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals he applies ordinary substantial-evidence review and reverses and remands under sentence four where the ALJ's analysis is deficient, but affirms where the decision is adequately supported - outcomes turn on the quality of the ALJ's reasoning, not a default lean. Across the grounded docket (21 dispositions), 12 ended in reversal or remand for the claimant and 9 affirmed the agency.
“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the ALJ's decision is reversed and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Procedural preferences
On spoliation/e-discovery sanctions he anchors the analysis to the duty-to-preserve trigger: alteration or deletion of ESI that occurred BEFORE the duty to preserve arose is not sanctionable, and a movant must identify relevant ESI actually lost after the duty attached. Absent that, he recommends denying dispositive sanctions (dismissal, adverse inference).
“any alteration to Putnam's laptop and deletion of files (other than the seven deleted files) occurred prior to CaramelCrisp's duty to preserve, and the precise identities of the seven deleted files are available. ... she has not identified any relevant ESI lost after the duty to preserve arose.”
On discovery disputes he readily compels production of relevant material but tailors the scope rather than granting wholesale - ordering an internal do-not-call list produced subject to confidentiality and contact limits, and compelling a plaintiff's tax returns where the plaintiff's financial condition was put at issue - while denying compulsion that is disproportionate to the case posture.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel [68] Allstate's internal DNC list is granted with the limitations set forth above.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the ALJ's decision is reversed and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Kameka's request for reversal and remand [16, 21] is denied, the Acting Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [24, 25] is granted, and the ALJ's decision is affirmed.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court affirms the ALJ's decision.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [126] is denied.”
“As a result, Plaintiff's motion to quash [165] is denied.”
Combined Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Recommendation on the defendant's spoliation-sanctions motion. Harjani recommended that the district judge deny the dispositive requests to dismiss part of CaramelCrisp's breach-of-contract claim and give an adverse-inference instruction; he denied the non-dispositive requests for fees and costs and denied the motion to strike by order. The available record does not show the district judge's later action on the recommendation. Harjani wrote: 'For the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends that Defendant's motion for sanctions [169] be denied as to her request for dismissal of CaramelCrisp's breach of contract claim... and her request for an adverse inference...' and 'Defendant's motion to strike [180] is denied.'
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion to qualify defendants' responses to Rule 36 requests to admit [104] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the above reasons, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [30].”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel [68] Allstate's internal DNC list is granted with the limitations set forth above.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [72] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Compel [92] is granted. Eternity Mart shall produce its 2019 tax returns and Eternity Sales Corp, Inc.'s tax returns from 2016 to 2019 with appropriate redactions and in accordance with the parties' protective order [20] by October 26, 2021.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's motion for sanctions [48] and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions [54] are both denied. The portion of Defendant's motion seeking to re-depose Plaintiff is denied as moot.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's motion for sanctions [48] and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions [54] are both denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Harjani's district-court assignments began in 2024 and were still largely pending when reviewed. The sampled Chicago docket includes intellectual-property enforcement, Social Security appeals, consumer-finance disputes, union benefit-fund collections, civil-rights cases, immigration-detention habeas petitions, federal tax matters, and a criminal calendar. No completed cases appeared in the sample, so no case-duration figure is reported.
Put Judge Harjani's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Harjani actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Harjani's own signed orders and cites them.