Henry J. Ricardo
How Judge Ricardo rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ricardo
Henry J. Ricardo serves as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York. Before his selection in 2024, he practiced commercial litigation for more than thirty years, including as a partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. He earned an A.B. from Princeton University and a J.D. from Columbia Law School.
Judge Ricardo's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ricardo, 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.
- Fillable Form for Electronic Device General Purpose ↗
- Individual Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices for Criminal Cases ↗
- Settlement Procedures ↗
- Template for Case Report and Proposed Case Management Plan for Pro Se Case ↗
- Template for Proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not send courtesy copies unless chambers requests them.
“D. Courtesy Copies. Please do not send courtesy copies to Chambers unless requested by the Court.”
Motions
A pre-motion conference is generally required for motions returnable before Judge Ricardo, subject to the listed exceptions.
“B. Pre-Motion Conferences. As described below, unless waived by the Court, pre-motion conferences are required where the proposed motion is returnable before Judge Ricardo, 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. 4(a)(4)(A), any post-judgment motions, and applications made by order to show cause. This Rule applies to non-parties (such as those served with a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45) as well as to parties.”
Conferences
Absent an emergency, request an extension or adjournment at least three days before the deadline.
“Absent an emergency, any request for extension or adjournment shall be made at least 3 days prior to the deadline. Requests for extensions will ordinarily be denied if made after the expiration of the original deadline.”
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 Ricardo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage of an ADA website-accessibility case, Ricardo found standing adequately alleged where the complaint identified the attempted purchase, the specific access barriers, continuing inaccessibility, and a concrete reason to return.
“The FAC alleges enough facts to meet all three elements of injury-in-fact”
In employment discovery, he permitted comparator evidence tied to named individuals, complaints, employer responses, and defined time periods.
“Defendants are ORDERED to produce documents sufficient to show all”
In a disability appeal, Ricardo applied the past-relevant-work definition effective when the administrative decision was issued and rejected retroactive application of a later rule.
“The applicable version of the regulation is therefore the one in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision.”
In an employment noncompete dispute, Ricardo found the dispute sufficiently connected to the employee’s securities registration agreement to support enforcement of its arbitration clause by an affiliated employer.
“The subject matter of this dispute is sufficiently intertwined with the subject matter”
Procedural preferences
He tailored social-media production to the pleaded events, claimed emotional distress, treatment, and identified alternative stressors rather than permitting unrestricted account discovery.
“media documents are those that refer or relate to events alleged in the complaint,”
In a pro se discovery dispute, Ricardo required answers to two interrogatories tied to the restaurant and its warning signs but denied two broader requests.
“Plaintiff’s request is denied with regard to Interrogatories 4 and 5”
In a subpoena dispute, Ricardo limited compelled production to the incident at issue and emphasized Rule 45 prior notice before any renewed subpoenas.
“Plaintiffs are advised to strictly comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 requirements regarding prior notice”
Cautions
A plaintiff's history of filing similar ADA cases did not create a heightened standing standard; Ricardo assessed the particular complaint under the ordinary pleading-stage presumption.
“prolific ADA plaintiffs are not subject to a heightened”
He declined to appoint a neutral expert in a pro se personal-injury dispute and denied all related relief concerning the opposing expert.
“Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a neutral expert is denied”
In an employment retaliation pleading, he required facts connecting the former employer to alleged hiring difficulties rather than relying on speculation about communications with other employers.
“Plaintiff makes no non-conclusory factual allegation that Defendant communicated with other potential employers.”
In a discovery sanctions dispute, Ricardo deferred the requested fee amount because the applicant had not supplied evidence supporting the proposed rates and hours.
“Plaintiff fails to provide evidence to support the reasonableness of the fees it”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Motion, ECF No. 42, is GRANTED IN PART.”
“Letter Motions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“at today’s conference, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant is directed to respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 2”
“Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a neutral expert is denied”
“For the reasons described below, Baggu’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff has until October 8, 2025 to file an amended complaint.”
“For the reasons discussed on the record, the Letter Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“the Motion to Compel Subpoena Responses is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
“The Motion to Compel Depositions is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.”
“The Motion to Quash is GRANTED, without prejudice to Plaintiffs properly serving future subpoenas.”
“The Protective Order Motion, which requests to specifically hold depositions on the dates that Defendants proposed, is also DENIED.”
“In light of Plaintiffs’ representation that Judge Kaplan previously approved sealing of this document, the Motion to Seal is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED and this case is stayed pending arbitration.”
“Plaintiff’s First Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice to renewal”
“Second Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal based on new evidence.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The targeted seven-matter sample contains two employment cases, one personal-injury action, one disability-access case, and three Social Security appeals. Six reached a dismissal or other final disposition; one remained pending. Recent case-level metadata lacked termination dates for the two newly added matters even though their orders and later entries recorded disposition.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
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 Ricardo: 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 Ricardo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ricardo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ricardo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace