Michael L. Orenstein
Judge Orenstein no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Orenstein decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When asked to pierce attorney-client privilege in patent discovery, Orenstein required a prima facie evidentiary showing rather than allegations alone.
“this court finds that defendants have not sustained their burden to present a prima facie case of fraud on the PTO on the part of the plaintiffs.”
In evaluating claimed trade-secret material, he focused on how the former employee actually obtained the information, not merely whether it could have been found elsewhere.
“resolution of the issue in a case like this depends not upon how a defendant could have acquired the information, but rather upon how he did in fact actually acquire it.”
Procedural preferences
Late amendment weighed against the movant when it would require substantial new discovery, added expense, and further delay.
“require significant additional discovery and a corresponding expenditure of resources by both parties and will further significantly delay resolution of this litigation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Government’s motion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g), for a stay of this civil forfeiture proceeding pending the termination of the related criminal prosecution now before this Court, is granted to the extent set forth below.”
“The claimant’s motions pursuant to Rules 37(a) and 28(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are denied without prejudice to a renewal thereof upon the expiration of the stay of the civil forfeiture proceeding or the conclusion of the trial of the criminal indictment, whichever occurs sooner.”
“After an in camera inspection, plaintiff, in accordance with the above, is directed to disclose to defendant the specific documents noted above within fifteen days from the date hereon.”
“the Court adopts the rationale of the Rackear and Monarch cases and respectfully reports and recommends that Defendant’s motion for leave to amend the Answer with counterclaims be DENIED.”
“Judge Orenstein recommended that the plaintiffs application be denied because it would ‘require significant additional discovery and a corresponding expenditure of resources by both parties and will further significantly delay resolution of this litigation.’”
“Judge Orenstein directed Magee to turn over Dr. Tassy’s handwritten notes to Paul Revere within ten days of the oral Order (by February 28, 1997), and ordered that Dr. Tassy’s supplemental deposition be conducted on either March 6 or 7, 1997.”
“He may appear [at trial] and testify with regard to any matters that he was (questioned about) at the November 18, 1996 deposition, but since he has failed miserably in his professional duties and obligations as a treating physician for his conduct and his failure to turn over the notes to the plaintiff and the defendant, after directed to do so upon court order, he is precluded from testifying as to any treatment that he rendered after June 3, 1993.”
“this Court respectfully reports and recommends that plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment striking defendant’s Fourth Affirmative Defense be GRANTED.”
“this Court respectfully reports and recommends that defendant’s cross-motion be DENIED as moot.”
“this Court respectfully reports and recommends that the Order of Judge Cyganowski be AFFIRMED in its entirety.”
“For the reasons that follow, this Court respectfully reports and recommends that the defendant’s motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“this Court respectfully reports and recommends that Plaintiffs application for a preliminary injunction be DENIED, and that the District Court abstain from this action.”
“At the conclusion of the report and recommendation, Judge Orenstein stated ‘[t]his Court reports and recommends [that] the defendant’s motion be denied’”
“The application is denied.”
“Judge Orenstein granted the motion to reconsider, and after reconsideration, adhered to his prior ruling.”
“The Report recommended that the Court deny the defendants’ joint pretrial motion to suppress evidence that was allegedly unlawfully seized from PLS offices by Frank Zambaras”
“Magistrate Judge Orenstein recommended that ‘defendant’s motion be denied in all respects and that this Court find[] that the plaintiff ha[d] served process properly pursuant to New York CPLR section 311, subdivision 1’”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled historical matters included civil-rights, maritime-contract, forfeiture, personal-injury, labor, and other statutory cases. Because every sampled entry stream was empty and the index carried an identity collision, no motion timeline, duration, or base-rate characterization is reported.
A historical record
Judge Orenstein 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.