Gabriel W. Gorenstein
How Judge Gorenstein rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gorenstein
Gabriel W. Gorenstein serves as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York. His chambers are in the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in Manhattan.
Judge Gorenstein's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gorenstein, 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
Filing
Send chambers one marked courtesy copy of each filed memorandum of law when filing it.
“C. Courtesy Copies of Motion Papers. A party must send to Chambers (by postal mail or other delivery to 40 Foley Square) one courtesy copy of each memorandum of law the party files, marked as such, at the same time as it is filed.”
Motions
A pre-motion conference is required when the proposed motion is returnable before or referred to Judge Gorenstein, subject to the listed exceptions.
“A. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. As described below, pre-motion conferences are required where the proposed motion is returnable before Judge Gorenstein, or where the proposed motion has been referred to Judge Gorenstein, except that no pre-motion conference is required for motions for admission pro hac vice, motions for reconsideration or reargument, motions listed in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), motions for recusal, and applications made by order to show cause.”
Discovery
Before seeking discovery relief, confer in person or by phone; the other party must respond to a conference request within one business day.
“Discovery Motions. No application relating to discovery (that is, any dispute arising under Rules 26 through 37 or Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) shall be heard unless the moving party has first conferred in good faith by telephone or in person with all other relevant parties in an effort to resolve the dispute. A party must respond within one business day to any request from another party to confer unless an emergency prevents such a response. If the”
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 Gorenstein decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Gorenstein treated prejudgment interest on a New York quantum-meruit award as mandatory where the jury's award was purely compensatory.
“Accordingly, Stillman is entitled to recover prejudgment interest against defendants in the amount of 9% on the jury award of $132,724.00 for the period from April 28, 2005, until entry of judgment.”
After denying a claimant’s judgment-on-the-pleadings motion on the existing agency record, Gorenstein accepted the government’s proposed remand path so the agency could consider a waiver request. A later order implemented that remand.
“we will accede to the Government’s proposed course of action and remand the case to allow for consideration of a waiver request.”
In Washington, Gorenstein remanded a Social Security appeal after finding the ALJ had not adequately explained the treatment of treating-source opinions.
“Here, we agree with plaintiff that the ALJ erred in addressing his treating sources’ opinions.”
Procedural preferences
For remote depositions, he was willing to use videoconferencing when international travel created substantial practical and safety burdens, while setting a prompt completion deadline.
“Any deposition of Aly shall be conducted by videoconference. The deposition shall take place within the next 21 days.”
He declined to shift travel costs for out-of-district depositions where the witnesses held critical information, travel was manageable, and the amount at stake made the expense proportionate.
“The circumstances here do not favor the shifting of costs.”
He distinguished protected Suspicious Activity Reports from underlying investigatory materials and required a document-specific showing before withholding the latter.
“BOC's invocation of the SAR prohibition is rejected as to investigatory documents.”
In one Rule 11 dispute, he struck a filed notice of intent to seek sanctions because the rule required serving the motion on the opponent rather than filing that notice.
“Rule 11(c)(2) contemplates that the motion will be ‘served’ on the offending party, not filed.”
In Donoghue, Gorenstein permitted a liquidating trustee to replace shareholder plaintiffs because substitution did not change the case’s substance or unfairly prejudice defendants.
“we discern no ‘unfairness’ to defendants in allowing substitution”
Cautions
Spoliation sanctions required proof of culpability and relevance; a single inadvertent deletion contrary to preservation instructions did not establish bad faith or gross negligence, especially where the email was recovered from another party.
“the mere fact that a single email was deleted in contravention of the instruction to preserve does not reflect either bad faith, the intentional destruction of evidence, or gross negligence.”
In a court-initiated Rule 11 proceeding over fabricated case citations, Gorenstein emphasized deterrence after counsel did not explain how the citations entered the briefs; he imposed a $2,500 sanction.
“Deterrence is paramount here, given Lindsay’s obdurate refusal to explain how the citations came to be included in her briefs.”
In Tyson-Phipps, Gorenstein allowed one proposed Title VII amendment but rejected the other proposed claims and closed off further pleading amendments in that case.
“Court will not permit any further amendments to plaintiff’s complaint.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, CFI's motion for sanctions (Docket # 121) is denied. Plaintiffs request for attorneys' fees is similarly denied.”
“Plaintiff shall have judgment against defendants InService America, Inc. and Wildfire Partners, Inc. for $132,724.00 plus prejudgment interest of $32.73 per day from April 28, 2005, until the date of entry of judgment.”
“Windsor's application is therefore denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion for a protective order (Docket #38) is granted. Any deposition of Aly shall be conducted by videoconference.”
“the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket # 11) is granted”
“the plaintiff's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket # 23) is denied.”
“the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket# 28) is granted”
“Distefano's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket# 15) is denied.”
“Bonilla-Bukhari's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket # 18) is denied”
“the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket # 24) is granted.”
“the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket # 15) is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Anthony’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket # 24) is denied.”
After denying the claimant's prior motion on the existing record, Gorenstein ordered a sentence-four remand for consideration of a waiver request. Retained as follow-up context, without double-counting the earlier motion.
“In sum, plaintiff’s motion to strike (filed as Docket # 169) is granted. The Clerk shall strike Docket # 166 from the record.”
Stayed the action after learning of the plaintiff's bankruptcy, while continuing consideration of a collateral attorney-conduct issue. The stay arose from the court's show-cause process and is not counted as a party motion.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The fixed availability sample consists entirely of terminated consent Social Security appeals filed from January through February 2018. It is useful for observing scheduling and Social Security outcomes but does not represent Gorenstein's broader civil 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, not for Judge Gorenstein: 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 Gorenstein with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gorenstein, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gorenstein's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace