Denise Louise Cote
How Judge Cote rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cote
Denise Cote is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Cote received a commission on August 10, 1994. Judge Cote assumed senior status on December 15, 2011.
Judge Cote's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Cote, 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.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Letters to chambers may not exceed two pages, and attachments over ten pages require a mailed or hand-delivered courtesy copy.
“A. Letters. Except as provided below, communications with Chambers should be by letter, which shall not exceed two pages in length. Letters should be filed electronically on ECF in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. ‘Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions.’ When a letter is accompanied by attachments exceeding ten pages in length, the submitting party shall both file the letter on ECF and deliver a courtesy copy to Chambers by mail or hand delivery. No”
Motions
Civil pre-motion conferences are required only for discovery motions.
“A. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion conferences are not required, except for motions concerning discovery, which are governed by Section 2.C above.”
Discovery
After meeting and conferring, raise a discovery dispute by an ECF letter-motion of no more than two pages.
“C. Discovery Disputes. Follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following modifications. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person or by telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute. If this meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute, the party may file a letter-motion on ECF pursuant to Rule 4.J below, no longer than two pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and requesting an informal conference. Such a letter must include”
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 Cote decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Federal Housing Finance Agency v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., Judge Cote rejected a proposed loss-causation defense under the Virginia and D.C. Blue Sky laws and declined to rely on post-enactment legislative history.
“Post-enactment legislative history (a contradiction in terms) is not a legitimate tool of statutory interpretation.”
In a company-asset dispute, evidence of a manager’s possible fiduciary duty and concealment left the limitations defense for a jury.
“A reasonable jury could find that Salvatore was a fiduciary who concealed his use of Tiffany’s funds for his private benefit.”
In Dinallo’s reinsurance dispute, Cote enforced the service-of-suit clause as a waiver of removal and remanded the case to state court.
“This service of suit clause operates as a waiver of the defendant’s right to remove to federal court.”
In Almeida v. NYU Langone Hospitals, Judge Cote found that months of discussion about remote and administrative work defeated the employee’s failure-to-engage claim.
“As already discussed, the evidence shows that NYU engaged in a months-long cooperative dialogue regarding her requests for remote and administrative work.”
Procedural preferences
In Eastman Kodak Co. v. Ricoh Co., Judge Cote denied a renewed Rule 50 motion because trial evidence supported the jury's verdict, applying what she described as a particularly heavy burden after a jury has ruled for the nonmovant.
“This is a particularly heavy burden where, as here, the jury has deliberated in the case and actually returned its verdict in favor of the non-movant.”
In Children's Network, LLC v. PixFusion LLC, Judge Cote denied transfer to the Eastern District of Texas after finding the movant had not met its clear-and-convincing burden; the first-filed rule and the New York connections also favored keeping the case.
“The movant bears the burden of establishing, by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ that a transfer of venue is warranted.”
In L.C. & Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. LeFrak Organization, Inc., Judge Cote declined to consider the defendants' extrinsic facts and exhibit on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and denied dismissal based on the pleaded claims.
“At the stage of a motion to dismiss, the Court ‘is limited to facts stated on the face of the complaint and in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, as well as to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.’”
In Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman, she retained related state-law claims after discovery and summary judgment because dismissal and refiling would duplicate substantial work.
“duplicate substantial judicial and party resources, delay resolution, and impose unnecessary expense.”
Cautions
In Eastman Kodak Co. v. Asia Optical Co., Judge Cote granted an injunction against a Chinese suit seeking reimbursement of payments on an existing federal judgment, while recognizing that restraints on foreign litigation require care and restraint.
“principles of comity counsel that injunctions restraining foreign litigation be used sparingly and granted only with care and great restraint.”
In Iwamura v. Independent Digital News and Media, LLC, she declined to dismiss a copyright complaint on fair-use grounds because the amended complaint did not clearly establish that defense.
“The amended complaint does not clearly establish fair use.”
In In re Mobileye Global Securities Litigation, she rejected an assumption that an alleged percentage increase in sales translated directly into the same percentage increase in market share because the complaint supplied no basis for that equivalence.
“The SAC, however, provides no basis for this equivalency.”
In American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management, Judge Cote rejected a statutory justification for access to personnel records that the defendants first offered during summary judgment briefing.
“This argument is a post hoc rationalization offered for the first time in summary judgment briefing.”
In De Leon v. DraftKings, Inc., Judge Cote rejected a fiduciary-duty claim because the pleaded VIP host relationship remained commercial and did not allege a higher level of trust.
“The FAC does not plead that the VIP Hosts became the fiduciaries of the plaintiffs.”
In James v. UMG Recordings, she dismissed the artists’ copyright termination claim because the agreements identified a production company, rather than the artists, as the grantor. She also found that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege their ownership of the master tapes.
“They cannot terminate a copyright grant executed by NITA.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“LeFrak has filed a motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.”
“Kodak now seeks an anti-suit injunction against AO to halt the Chinese lawsuit. For the following reasons, Kodak's motion is granted.”
“For the reasons that follow, Kinsale's motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Defendant PixFusion, LLC (‘PixFusion’) has moved to transfer this declaratory judgment action to the Eastern District of Texas where patent infringement litigation involving these parties is pending. By Order dated June 17, 2010, defendant's motion was denied.”
“Oracle's July 14, 2009 motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Arbercheski's failure to mitigate her damages is granted in part.”
“For the reasons stated below, FHFA's motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and the defendants' motion to certify is denied.”
“Ricoh’s December 3, 2013 motion is denied.”
“The defendants' March 13, 2026 motion to dismiss is granted.”
“The Berwick Defendants' June 26, 2026 motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Tower’s April 13 motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to vacate the March 19, 2010 temporary restraining order, is denied.”
“the Defendants’ June 12, 2009 motions to dismiss the Complaint are granted except for the Section 15 claims against Tage and Khanbabi.”
“On July 21, 2009, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample of the judge's current case assignments. Despite assuming senior status in 2011, she remains actively assigned a broad civil docket. The visible 2026 slice reflects current assignments, 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 | 13 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Cote: 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 Cote with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cote, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cote's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace