Jennifer E. Willis
How Judge Willis rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Willis
Jennifer E. Willis became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York on January 28, 2022. Her chambers are in the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in Manhattan.
Judge Willis's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Willis, 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.
- ESI Plan and Proposed Order ↗
- Individual Practices in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Practices in Criminal Cases ↗
- Model Protective Order ↗
- Proposed Case Management Plan for Pro Se Cases ↗
- Report of Rule 26(f) Conference and Proposed Case Management Plan ↗
- Standing Order for All Cases Referred for Settlement ↗
Key rules
Motions
For motions returnable before or referred to Judge Willis, a pre-motion letter seeking a conference is generally required, subject to the listed exceptions.
“A. Pre-Motion Conferences Letters in Civil Cases. In advance of filing a letter with the Court, the Parties are expected to meet and confer regarding a briefing schedule for any anticipated motion. Pre-motion letters seeking a conference should propose a briefing schedule and are required where the proposed motion is returnable before Judge Willis, or where the proposed motion has been referred to Judge Willis, except that no pre-motion”
Discovery
After conferring, a discovery dispute may be presented in a letter-motion of no more than three single-spaced pages.
“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 the meet-and-confer does not resolve the dispute, a party may submit a letter motion no longer than 3 single-spaced pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and requesting a conference. Such letter motion must state when the meet-and-confer”
Conferences
File adjournment or extension requests by ECF letter-motion at least two business days before the original deadline.
“C. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. All requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be filed on ECF as letter motions at least 2 business days before the original deadline. The letter motion must state: (1) the original date(s); (2) the number”
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 Willis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In foreign-discovery proceedings, Willis allowed a narrower, unopposed request where no burden was identified while rejecting broader discovery from a bank branch where production appeared intrusive and unlikely to yield responsive information.
“intrusive considering the posture of this litigation, and the history of these claims.”
In wage-and-hour class certification, she found predominance supported by employer time records and other common proof despite individualized questions about hours and damages.
“Defendants’ time records would be ‘common proof’ for all potential plaintiffs.”
In Social Security review, Willis remanded where the administrative law judge failed to assess the effect of fatigue on attendance and the existing record did not make that omission harmless.
“This failure to specifically discuss all the effects of fatigue”
In a SNAP retailer disqualification case, Willis found that training evidence beginning after the violation period did not create a triable issue about the earlier compliance program.
“Because the data that serves as the basis for the trafficking violations occurred prior to the evidence of the training program provided by Plaintiffs, the new evidence submitted by Plaintiffs does not create a triable issue of fact.”
On a diversity-jurisdiction remand motion, considered the claimant’s concrete injury allegations and settlement demand to find a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 was in controversy, even though the complaint stated no dollar amount.
“Defendants have satisfied their burden and established a ‘reasonable probability’ that Plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000.00.”
In Klein, Willis found a requested Social Security fee reasonable after considering the contingent risk, work on a lengthy administrative record, and the claimant’s success.
“the amount requested, $39,641, is not a ‘windfall’.”
Procedural preferences
She granted a discovery extension only for specifically identified records supported by deposition testimony, barred other requests, and required extraordinary circumstances for another extension.
“No other discovery requests”
In reviewing a wage settlement, Willis considered the totality of the circumstances and separately assessed compensation to the plaintiff and counsel's fees.
“are fair, reasonable, and adequate, both to redress Plaintiff’s claims in this action”
In one collective-bargaining dispute, Willis compelled arbitration on three employer defendants’ separate motions and stayed claims against them pending that process.
“Employer Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration at Dkt. Nos. 33, 42, and 45 are GRANTED.”
In Rosario, Willis imposed tailored Rule 37(e)(1) sanctions for lost video evidence but declined harsher relief because the record did not establish an intent to deprive.
“presented evidence is capable of more than one interpretation”
Cautions
She treated the final FLSA collective-certification request as moot after certifying the overlapping state-law class, while denying defendants' request to decertify the collective.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Collective Certification is DENIED as moot.”
In foreign-discovery litigation, a request was denied where the respondent represented that responsive material was unlikely to be found in New York and compliance would be burdensome.
“no reason to believe that there is any responsive information”
In one Social Security review, Willis rejected a challenge to vocational testimony based on claimed obsolescence of listed jobs where the claimant supplied no supporting authority.
“This argument has been consistently rejected by courts in this Circuit and Plaintiff cites no authority to the contrary.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“is DENIED as to KBC NY, but GRANTED as to the Federal Reserve Bank.”
“GRANTED until June 24, 2024, but only for Plaintiffs to provide the requested”
“This request is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Collective Certification is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Decertify the Collective Action is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED.”
“summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants and Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED.”
“Employer Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration at Dkt. Nos. 33, 42, and 45 are GRANTED.”
“Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED in full and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in full.”
“For the following reasons Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.”
“Petitioner is awarded $39,641 in attorney’s fees”
“Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The original seven-case targeted sample contains two wage-and-hour matters, one foreign-discovery proceeding, one disability-access case, two Social Security appeals, and one motor-vehicle action; five were terminated and two remained pending at review. The three supplementary dockets are outside this mix.
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 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 Willis: 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 Willis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Willis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Willis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace