Lewis A. Kaplan
How Judge Kaplan rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kaplan
Lewis A. Kaplan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Kaplan received a commission on August 10, 1994. Judge Kaplan assumed senior status on February 1, 2011.
Judge Kaplan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kaplan, 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
Deliver two courtesy copies of motion papers to the court security officers at the Worth Street entrance.
“Courtesy Copies: Two courtesy copies should be addressed to Judge Kaplan and delivered to the court security officers at the Worth Street entrance, 200 Worth”
Motions
No pre-motion conference is required.
“MOTION RULES AT A GLANCE Pre-motion Not required. conference:”
Discovery
Raise a discovery dispute by electronically filed motion of no more than four pages, excluding exhibits.
“Discovery Disputes Discovery disputes shall be raised with the Court by motion filed electronically. The motion shall not exceed four (4) pages in length, including affidavits and declarations, but exclusive of exhibits. In addition, counsel filing such motions electronically shall send a letter”
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 Kaplan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Banco del Austro, S.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Judge Kaplan allowed a UCC Article 4-A claim to proceed past Rule 12(b)(6) because the commercial reasonableness of the bank's security procedure required a fact-intensive inquiry.
“Resort to these extra-complaint sources illustrates the fact-intensive nature of the commercial reasonableness inquiry, one that courts typically address at summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
In In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, Judge Kaplan rejected the plaintiffs' request for additional discovery before summary judgment because they had filed no Rule 56(f) affidavit identifying the needed facts or how they would obtain them.
“Here, plaintiffs have submitted no Rule 56(f) affidavit. They have not shown what facts are sought to resist the motion and how they are to be obtained. They have made no effort to show how those facts might create a genuine issue of material fact. By their own admission, they have made no effort to obtain them. They have failed utterly to make the requisite showing.”
In In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, Judge Kaplan denied the Deloitte defendants' request for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), finding the certification criteria unmet and the case unsuitable for certification.
“This Court is not satisfied either that the criteria of Section 1292(b) are satisfied in this instance or, even if they were, that this would be an appropriate case for certification.”
In F. v. Harris-Madden, the court partly rejected a proposed protective order that would have required every agency employee assisting the defense to sign it. The order allowed internal inquiries needed to prepare the defense while addressing the youth plaintiffs’ privacy interests.
“defendants must be able to make internal, generalized inquiries in connection with this litigation”
In Carroll v. Trump, he ordered an anonymous jury after finding a case-specific risk of juror harassment and concluding that the presumption of public access to juror names was overcome.
“The presumption of access to juror names is overcome by this risk.”
Cautions
In Almengor v. Schmidt, Judge Kaplan treated the plaintiffs' challenge to student-fee regulations as a facial attack because it targeted the rules' adoption and existence rather than their application to the plaintiffs.
“It is an attack on the fact that they exist based on the assertion that they were adopted for an improper motive. It therefore is not an as-applied challenge, which is the only avenue that remains open to plaintiffs after the Court's July 23, 2009 decision.”
In Endico v. Fonte, he dismissed the Section 10(b) claim because the LLC interests sold to the Fontes were not investment contracts: the buyers became managing members rather than passive investors dependent on others’ efforts.
“The relevant focus is on what Endico sold, not what he was left with after the transaction.”
In Miller v. 1847 Holdings LLC, the court dismissed securities claims against the Bevilacqua defendants because the complaint did not allege a misstatement by them tied to a securities transaction or actionable conduct before the plaintiff’s trades.
“there is no legally sufficient claim against Bevilacqua Defendants on a primary liability theory.”
After a trial about immigration detention at 26 Federal Plaza, he found the confinement conditions unconstitutional and ordered permanent relief for current and future detainees at that facility.
“The conditions of confinement to which ICE subjected immigration detainees at 26 Fed during the summer of 2025 were inhumane and unconstitutional.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint [00 Civ. 2843 docket item 5030] is granted and the action dismissed.”
“Accordingly, defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing what remains of Count 2 is granted. As this disposes of the only claim remaining in this case, the Clerk shall enter final judgment of dismissal and close the case.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the defendants' motion to strike and grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
“Defendants' motions [DI 14, 16] are granted and the amended complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.”
“In conclusion, defendant Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss [DI 13] is granted to the extent that the breach of contract and negligence claims (Counts I and III) are dismissed. It is denied in all other respects.”
“As there remains no other basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs state law claims must be dismissed.”
“Accordingly, defendants' motion is denied in all respects.”
“The motion to dismiss the complaint is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [docket item 24] is granted in all respects.”
“DT-US's motion for reconsideration [04MD1653 docket item 1672, 04 Civ. 0030 docket item 1043] is denied.”
“In all the circumstances, the motion to certify questions to the Court of Appeals [04 MD 1653 docket item 1670, 04 Civ. 0030 docket item 1041] is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion to stay the Contempt Motion [DI 288] is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The visible current-assignment slice is recent and 2026-heavy: alien-detainee habeas petitions, trademark disputes, ERISA, securities and commodities, consumer banking, and criminal matters.
- It reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload.
- The selected 2020-2022 terminated cases include a default judgment, a mooted discovery application, a dismissal denial, a notice-of-pendency vacatur, and short case-management rulings; their mix is not representative of all assigned matters.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 68 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 68 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 156 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 157 |
| Sep 2024 | 20 | 189 |
| Mar 2024 | 21 | 188 |
| Sep 2023 | 16 | 190 |
| Mar 2023 | 13 | 186 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 181 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 185 |
| Sep 2021 | 7 | 63 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 10 | 10 |
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 Kaplan: 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 Kaplan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kaplan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kaplan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace