John G. Koeltl
How Judge Koeltl rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Koeltl
John George Koeltl is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Koeltl received a commission on August 10, 1994.
Judge Koeltl's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Koeltl, 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
The moving party should furnish one courtesy set of all motion papers after briefing is complete.
“C. Courtesy Copies. The moving party should furnish to Chambers one courtesy copies of all the motion papers (including papers in opposition to the motion) after the motion has been fully briefed. Each submission related to the motion should be filed on the docket promptly after service, but the full set of courtesy copies should be furnished to chambers only once the motion is fully briefed. Courtesy copies of pleadings, marked as such, shall be submitted to”
Motions
Outside discovery, pre-motion conferences are required only for dismissal, amendment, and summary-judgment motions.
“B. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. For discovery motions, follow Local Civil Rule 37.2. For motions other than discovery motions, a pre-motion conference with the court is required only before making a motion to dismiss, motion to amend or a motion for summary judgment.”
Conferences
Absent an emergency, request an adjournment of a court appearance at least 48 hours in advance.
“reasons given by the adversary for refusing to consent. If the requested adjournment or extension affects any other scheduled dates, a proposed Revised Scheduling Order (reflecting only business days) must be attached. If the request is for an adjournment of a court appearance, absent an emergency, it shall be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled appearance.”
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 Koeltl decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Title VII disparate-impact case, he rejected the defendants’ argument that a complaint needed statistical support before discovery to survive a motion to dismiss.
“To the extent the defendants' argument is that a plaintiff must provide statistical support for a disparate impact claim in order to survive a motion to dismiss, that argument is incorrect. It would be inappropriate to require a plaintiff to produce statistics to support her disparate impact claim before the plaintiff has had the benefit of discovery.”
In a D&O coverage dispute, he held that the policy excluded costs incurred without the insurer’s consent and that the plaintiffs had not shown a legal basis for covering pre-notice defense expenses.
“The policy repeatedly makes clear that any costs incurred without the consent of the defendant are not covered under the policy. And the plaintiffs have failed to establish that Delaware, as a matter of law, would stray from the well-established principle, that pre-notice defense expenses are generally not covered, irrespective of prejudice.”
Procedural preferences
In a case involving an ongoing state administrative proceeding, he found Younger abstention appropriate, found no applicable exception, and granted the Division’s motion to dismiss.
“For all of these reasons, Younger abstention is appropriate in this case and no exception to the doctrine applies. Therefore, the Division's motion to dismiss is granted.”
In one mobile-app arbitration dispute, the court rejected an earlier terms screen with inconspicuous notice but enforced a later agreement presented on a clear terms screen that required the user to accept it.
“The method for presenting the September 30, 2016 Terms of Service to existing customers who had already registered conspicuously cured the defects in the notice for the February 8, 2016 Terms of Service.”
Cautions
In a securities case, he dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiffs had amended twice without curing the defects and had an additional opportunity to respond to Morrison.
“Because the plaintiffs have twice sought to amend their complaint without improving on the allegations contained therein, and were given the opportunity to file a supplemental affidavit in response to Morrison ..., the dismissal is with prejudice.”
In CFTC v. Fan Wang, after liability had been resolved by consent order, Koeltl denied a requested permanent trading and registration bar. He found mitigating circumstances and the defendant’s ability to pay supported a $167,728 civil penalty instead of the larger amount sought.
“the application to bar the defendant permanently from registering with the Commission and participating in the markets regulated by the Commission is denied. ... the CMP that the Commission seeks would be excessive and unrealistic. Accordingly, the Court will impose a CMP of $167,728 on the defendant.”
In one subpoena dispute, the court protected correspondence with an attorney relative because disclosure of a single email did not show intentional waiver of privilege over the remaining communications. A party seeking broader production must establish more than an isolated disclosure.
“There is no evidence pointing to the conclusion that the plaintiff intentionally waived her attorney-client privilege in disclosing the single email produced during discovery or in discussing that email during her deposition.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed above, the defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint in part is denied.”
“For the reasons stated above, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and Jackson Hewitt's motion for summary judgment is denied as moot.”
“Because the Court has granted the defendant's motion to dismiss this case, Jackson Hewitt's motion for summary judgment seeking a declaratory judgment and a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Division is denied as moot.”
“For the reasons explained above, the defendants' motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“TCB's motion to dismiss is denied. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 6.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the plaintiffs Section 1983 equal protection claim but denied with respect to the plaintiffs Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, CBS' motion to dismiss common law copyright infringement claims that fall outside the three-year statute of limitations under C.P.L.R. § 214(4) is granted with respect to the plaintiffs' claims for damages.”
“Liberty now moves for the Court to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Liberty's motion is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied and the defendant's motion for summary judgement is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied and the defendant's motion for summary judgement is granted. The Clerk is directed to close all pending motions and to enter judgment dismissing this action.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Commission's motion is granted in part and denied in part. ... providing for a civil monetary penalty of $167,728 and closing this case.”
“The defendants now move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ... For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for leave is denied.”
“the petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted in part and denied in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sample of the judge's current case assignments.
- The visible slice is recent and 2026-heavy: a wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions (463), Schedule-A intellectual-property enforcement suits (820 Copyright / 840 Trademark), a securities class action (850), contract recovery (150), a criminal matter (1:26-cr-00177), and a civil-forfeiture matter.
- It reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload; durations are filed-minus-terminated.
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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 10 | 11 |
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 Koeltl: 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 Koeltl with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Koeltl, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Koeltl's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace