Arun Subramanian
How Judge Subramanian rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Subramanian
Arun Srinivas Subramanian is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Subramanian received a commission on April 13, 2023.
Judge Subramanian's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Subramanian, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order Addendum (Patent) ↗
- Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order ↗
- Individual Practices For Hearings And Trials ↗
- Individual Practices in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases ↗
- Individual Practices in Criminal Cases ↗
- Model Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not submit courtesy copies unless the court orders otherwise.
“C. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, parties should not submit courtesy copies of any submissions.”
Motions
Civil pre-motion conferences are required only for discovery disputes.
“B. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion conferences are not required, except for disputes concerning discovery, which are governed by Paragraph 5 above.”
Discovery
A discovery meet-and-confer must include at least one conference among lead trial counsel.
“B. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first confer in good faith with the opposing party—in person, by videoconference, or by telephone—to resolve the dispute. This process must include at least one conference among Lead Trial Counsel for the parties involved in the dispute.”
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 8, 2026).
- Amended Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Civil Case Opening ↗
- Amended Standing Order on Miscellaneous Civil Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Applications to File a Civil Case Under Seal ↗
- Standing Order on Emergency Relief and Section 2255 Filing Procedures ↗
- Notice on Immigration Custody Habeas Petitions and Emergency Relief ↗
How Judge Subramanian decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a dispute over a transfer request involving online terms of service, he granted the motion to transfer.
“the motion to transfer is GRANTED.”
In a securities class action, he granted Schryver’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and approved Levi & Korinsky as lead counsel.
“Schryver's motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and to appoint Levi & Korinsky as lead counsel is GRANTED.”
In a ticket-platform breach case, applied the privacy carveout in the platform’s arbitration terms to claims arising from account access and stolen tickets, while leaving one purchaser’s arbitration question open for factual development.
“That fits within the capacious carveout contained in the 2024 TOU.”
In a school grant dispute, required the agency to explain in the administrative record why it sharply reduced awards; its calculation alone did not justify the funding change.
“the administrative record provides no explanation why funds were curtailed”
Procedural preferences
In a discovery dispute, he denied a requested extension and ordered production of DOCCS documents within 24 hours, noting that a prior judge had warned the parties against further extensions.
“The request for an extension is denied, and the documents from DOCCS should be produced within 24 hours. In June, Judge McMahon informed the parties that there would be no extensions of the September discovery deadline. ... At that time, the issue of paper discovery from the State Defendants was raised, but apparently was never attended to.”
Does not, as a regular practice, retain jurisdiction to enforce private settlements, and warns parties that if he does, the settlement agreement must be filed publicly: a nudge toward clean Rule 41 dismissals without ongoing court entanglement.
“It is not this Court's regular practice to retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. If the parties think it is necessary for the Court to do so here, they should file a joint letter ... The parties should be aware that if this Court does retain jurisdiction, the settlement agreement will need to be filed publicly.”
In a post-summary-judgment dispute, Subramanian denied reconsideration arguments that the movant could have presented during summary-judgment briefing. Counsel should raise a dispositive theory before the court rules.
“neither of the arguments raised in Live Nation’s letters was presented on summary judgment.”
Cautions
After a hearing in a Section 1983 case, he denied the state defendants’ summary-judgment motion and moved the case toward trial.
“For the reasons discussed at today's hearing, the state defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
In a defamation case, he held that the claims failed on ordinary state-law grounds apart from the constitutional issues emphasized in the parties’ briefing.
“putting aside the constitutional issues that dominate the parties' briefing, Belya's claims fail on routine state-law grounds.”
In a copyright-registration dispute, he found scant evidence that any registration errors had been made knowingly and denied the challenger’s summary-judgment request.
“Best Brands has scant evidence that any legal errors in the copyright registrations (if they exist in the first place) were made knowingly.”
In one securities class settlement, he reduced counsel’s requested fee from 32 percent to 30 percent after the lead plaintiffs could not explain why a lower figure within their own discussed range had been rejected. Counsel seeking class fees should document the lead plaintiffs’ consideration of the proposed percentage.
“the Court will reduce the fee to 30%—the lowest fee considered by the lead plaintiffs.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Shih's motion to serve as lead plaintiff is DENIED.”
“Schryver's motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and to appoint Levi & Korinsky as lead counsel is GRANTED.”
“The motion to intervene and transfer is DENIED without prejudice.”
“defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendants' motions to preclude plaintiffs' expert witnesses are DENIED as moot.”
“Best Brands' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Dkt. 264.”
“Both of Best Brands' motions are denied.”
“Patriot’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred under the statute of limitations is DENIED, and its motion to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim is GRANTED.”
“Live Nation’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Live Nation’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Nicholas Hill is GRANTED in part.”
“Live Nation’s motion for reconsideration is denied.”
“Live Nation’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal is denied”
“Live Nation’s motion to bifurcate is denied”
“For these reasons the motion to exclude Abrantes-Metz’s damages model is denied.”
“MLBAM’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED”
“its motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Verizon’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is GRANTED with respect to the prohibited-transaction claims and otherwise DENIED.”
“Verizon’s motion to dismiss the original complaint is DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 17.0 days (N = 24).
- Judge Subramanian was commissioned in April 2023, so his docket is young; a large share of the cases that reached him are reassignments inherited from other judges part-way through (Beverly Hills from Judge Woods, Belya from Judge Marrero, Rodriguez from Judge McMahon, Solid 21 and Wenger from Judge Schofield) or related-case referrals.
- The current docket is 2026-heavy and dominated by a wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions, alongside copyright, defamation, trademark, insurance, ADA Title III, FLSA labor, contract, securities, and a federal criminal docket.
- Where the inherited cases were fully briefed, he has reached the merits: he granted summary judgment ending the Belya defamation case and twice denied summary judgment in the Beverly Hills copyright case before it settled.
- Many other inherited matters resolved by settlement, stipulated dismissal, or voluntary dismissal. This reflects current assignments plus a sample of terminated dockets, not a tenure-wide caseload.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
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 Southern District of New York, not for Judge Subramanian: 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 | 9,565 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,749 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,416 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,313 | 14.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 87 | 51.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 9,565 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 10,695 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 10,316 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 11,818 | 6.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 10,662 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 10,118 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 11,357 | 6.6 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 Subramanian with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Subramanian, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Subramanian's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace