Judith C. McCarthy
How Judge McCarthy rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McCarthy
Judith C. McCarthy has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York since April 2014 and is the court's chief magistrate judge. Before joining the bench, she was executive vice president and general counsel of the New York Power Authority.
Judge McCarthy's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McCarthy, 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.
- Conduct Of Counsel At Trial ↗
- Electronic Device and Wi-Fi Access Instruction ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice ↗
- Model Confidentiality and Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Submit bound and tabbed courtesy copies of motion papers when serving the papers.
“B. Courtesy Copies. Courtesy copies of all motion papers, marked as such, shall be submitted to chambers at the time the papers are served. They must be securely bound and tabbed. For those parties permitted to file documents on ECF, all courtesy copies must bear proof of electronic filing.”
Motions
For most non-discovery motions, request a pre-motion conference with an ECF letter of no more than three pages.
“A pre-motion conference with the Court is required before making any other motions, except motions for admission pro hac vice, motions for re-argument or reconsideration, motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2), or motions for which the Court has already set a briefing schedule. To arrange a pre-motion conference, the moving party shall submit a letter via ECF, not to exceed three pages in length, setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion. The opposing party shall submit a response via ECF, not to exceed”
Conferences
Absent an emergency, seek adjournments at least 48 hours before the conference or deadline.
“or extension affects any other scheduled dates, a proposed Revised Scheduling Order (reflecting only business days) must be attached. All requests for adjournments must be made 48 hours before the scheduled conference or expiring deadline, absent an emergency.”
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 McCarthy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one Social Security appeal, McCarthy remanded because the administrative law judge had not made sufficient efforts to obtain functional opinions from treating physicians before relying on consultative examiners.
“The Court remands the case because similar efforts should have been made with Plaintiff's other treating physicians before the ALJ assigned significant weight to the opinions of Plaintiff's consultative examiners.”
In an FLSA settlement review, she approved an agreement after finding that it resulted from arm's-length negotiations and fairly resolved the contested issues.
“I find that the Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the case.”
In a Social Security contingent-fee application after a favorable remand, found 25.70 hours and a $1,055.81 effective hourly rate reasonable in light of circuit comparators and the result obtained.
“the requested amount yields an effective hourly rate of $1,055.81, which is ‘within the range of effective hourly rates that have previously been deemed reasonable by courts in this Circuit.’”
In Oghide, McCarthy let a Title VII retaliation claim proceed because differing explanations for a hiring decision could allow a jury to find pretext.
“The inconsistencies in Dr. Dolamore’s explanation are sufficient to defeat summary judgment”
Procedural preferences
Her Social Security analysis treated development of the administrative record as a threshold issue that had to be resolved before substantial-evidence review.
“where the ALJ has failed to develop the record, a reviewing court need not—indeed, cannot—reach the question of whether the Commissioner's denial of benefits was based on substantial evidence.”
In Hodges, McCarthy denied a requested protective order where the applicant identified no specific discovery issue or serious injury that the order would address.
“Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is a specific issue for the requested protective order to address.”
Cautions
In a premises-liability case, speculation about a spill's age did not establish constructive notice without evidence showing how long the substance had been on the floor.
“Plaintiff offers no evidence regarding how long the solution had been on the floor prior to the Accident.”
In another Social Security appeal, she upheld the agency decision where treatment notes and examinations supported the administrative law judge's assessment despite contrary evidence in the record.
“the findings of fact in a disability determination must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence, even if there is also substantial evidence for the claimant's position.”
In a civil-rights summary-judgment ruling, McCarthy dismissed a municipal failure-to-train claim where the complaint and record lacked a specific deficient practice tied to the asserted injury, while other claims continued.
“Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is completely devoid of any allegations that the City of Middletown failed to train its officers”
In a proposed data-labeling class action, McCarthy appointed interim lead counsel but declined to add an executive committee until a concrete need for the added structure was shown.
“Plaintiffs’ request to appoint an executive committee is denied without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Court approves the settlement and dismisses this action with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied”
“the Commissioner's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted”
“the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied”
“Plaintiff's motion is granted, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is granted, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is granted in the amount of $27,134.25.”
“For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) is denied.”
“request for sanctions related to the instant motion is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The original targeted sample includes six Social Security appeals, two wage-and-hour settlement matters, one premises-liability action, and one employment-settlement matter. Two supplementary employment dockets lie 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 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 McCarthy: 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 McCarthy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McCarthy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McCarthy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace