Margaret Merrell Miller Garnett
How Judge Garnett rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Garnett
Margaret M. Garnett is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Garnett received a commission on January 9, 2024.
Judge Garnett's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Garnett, 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.
- Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices Regarding Matters in which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Represents a Party ↗
- Model Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
The movant should submit one complete courtesy set of motion papers when the reply is served or soon after.
“3. Courtesy Copies. One courtesy copy of a complete set of motion papers should be submitted by the movant at the time the reply is served, or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. Courtesy copies shall be mailed or hand-delivered to Chambers (see supra Rule I(B)(6) for hand-delivery instructions). Courtesy”
Motions
Pre-motion letters or conferences are required only for discovery disputes and the summary-judgment procedure.
“1. Pre-Motion Letters and Conferences. Pre-motion letters or conferences are not required, except for letter-motions concerning discovery, which are governed by Rule II(A)(6), supra, and the procedure applicable to summary judgment motions, described in Rule II(B)(9), infra.”
Discovery
After conferring, the party seeking discovery must file an ECF letter-motion no longer than three single-spaced pages.
“Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first confer in good faith at least once with the opposing party—in person, by videoconference, or by telephone—to resolve the dispute. If the meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute, the party seeking discovery must submit a letter-motion to the Court via ECF, no longer than three pages (single spaced, with standard font and margins), explaining the nature of the dispute and why the party is entitled to”
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 Garnett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Mangione, Judge Garnett denied suppression of backpack evidence on multiple grounds, including a pre-transport safety search, an inventory search, and inevitable discovery through a later federal warrant.
“numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement (as well as the federal search warrant actually issued) preclude suppression of the Backpack and its contents in this case, whether through the discovery of the loaded magazine during a pre-transport safety search, the recovery of the remaining items in the course of an inventory search at the police station, or the inevitable discovery of all of the contents through the federal search warrant, even excising references to any items found or seen after the magazine, firearm, and/or silencer were found.”
In United States v. Mangione, Judge Garnett dismissed the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j) counts because the charged stalking predicates did not categorically qualify as crimes of violence, despite acknowledging the counterintuitive result.
“The analysis contained in the balance of this Opinion may strike the average person -- and indeed many lawyers and judges -- as tortured and strange, and the result may seem contrary to our intuitions about the criminal law. But it represents the Court's committed effort to faithfully apply the dictates of the Supreme Court to the charges in this case. The law must be the Court's only concern.”
In Newman, the court enforced an online ticket-purchase arbitration agreement after finding the purchasers had notice of the checkout terms and assented to them. The purchasers’ lack of recollection of reading the terms did not create a genuine dispute over assent.
“mere failure to read the terms and conditions does not obviate Plaintiffs’ assent to the Summit T&Cs.”
Procedural preferences
In a September 2025 order in United States v. Mangione, Garnett said Justice Department personnel may have violated the local rule on public statements about a pending criminal case. She directed the government to respond and submit a sworn explanation of how the statements occurred despite her earlier order.
“It appears from this letter that multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and this Court's order of April 25, 2025 specifically identifying the strictures of this rule for counsel and directing the prosecution team to ensure that the highest levels of the Department of Justice, up to and including Attorney General Bondi, were aware of and understood they were bound by this Rule.”
Cautions
In United States v. Mangione, Judge Garnett allowed oral argument on the dispositive dismissal motion but declined argument on other pending motions because she found the extensive briefing sufficient.
“given the extensive and excellent briefing by both sides on the other pending motions and the issues presented by those motions, the Court does not believe oral argument on the remaining motions is necessary or would be helpful to the Court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four of the Indictment is GRANTED.”
“the motion to suppress the Backpack and its contents is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Inmar’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, Deutsch and Premium Partners’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Deutsch’s and Premium Partners’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 55) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and Inmar’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 51) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Inmar from this action.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 64) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
“For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED... the DistroKid Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED, and the claims against the DistroKid Defendants are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendants have moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Now before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment... For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“For the reasons explained herein, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Defendants' motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Dkt. Nos. 16 and 18, and to CLOSE the case.”
“The Motion is HEREBY GRANTED. ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This cause having come on to be heard upon Fubo's complaint, Fubo's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and its memoranda of law, authorities, declarations, and exhibits offered in support thereof, the responses thereto by the JV Defendants, and an evidentiary hearing having been conducted, it appears to the Court that Fubo is likely to succeed on its claims that by entering into the JV, the JV Defendants will substantially lessen competition and restrain trade in the relevant market in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act”
“As discussed on the record with the parties at the oral argument held on December 13, 2024, Fox's motion to sever claims and transfer venue (Dkt. No. 306) is DENIED; Warner Bros. Discovery's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 312) is DENIED; the Disney Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 319) is DENIED; and Fox's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 322) is DENIED.”
“the Disney Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 319) is DENIED”
“Fox's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 322) is DENIED”
“Fox's motion to sever claims and transfer venue (Dkt. No. 306) is DENIED”
“For substantially the reasons underlying Judge Abrams’ decision, the Court DENIES the Petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and DENIES the motion for a preliminary injunction as moot.”
“For the reasons stated herein, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such relief, and therefore, must deny the Petition.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for the Defendants, TERMINATE all pending motions, and CLOSE this case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. The Government shall release Petitioner from custody immediately unless it provides him with a constitutionally adequate individualized hearing within 14 days of this Opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Judge Garnett was commissioned January 9, 2024.
- The reviewed assignments include immigration habeas, criminal, securities, intellectual property, labor, civil rights, and education cases.
- In the small terminated-civil duration sample, several matters ended by settlement, voluntary dismissal, or arbitration; other reviewed civil dockets contain contested rulings.
- The selected matters do not establish a tenure-wide case mix or disposition rate.
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 | 32 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 24 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 32 | 24 |
| Sep 2025 | 21 | 20 |
| Mar 2025 | 34 | 18 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 17 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 15 |
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 Garnett: 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 Garnett with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Garnett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Garnett's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace