Mary Kay Vyskocil
How Judge Vyskocil rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Vyskocil
Mary Kay Vyskocil is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Vyskocil received a commission on December 20, 2019.
Judge Vyskocil's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Vyskocil, 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 ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Criminal Cases ↗
- Patent Case Management Plan ↗
Key rules
Filing
Courtesy copies are unnecessary unless the court directs otherwise.
“vi. Courtesy Copies. Courtesy copies are not necessary unless otherwise directed by the Court. Upon request, courtesy copies”
Motions
Seek a pre-motion conference before dismissal, summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, sanctions, or discovery motions.
“i. Pre-Motion Submissions in Civil Cases. Parties wishing to file a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for sanctions, and any motions concerning discovery should, prior to filing any motion, request a pre-motion conference with the Court. Motions concerning discovery are discussed in Section 3(D) above.”
Discovery
After conferring, submit one joint ECF discovery-dispute letter of no more than four pages.
“D. Discovery Disputes. The parties are to follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following 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 this meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute, the party may file on ECF a joint letter, no longer than four pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and setting forth the position of each party with respect to the disputed issue, and requesting an informal conference. Such a letter must”
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 Vyskocil decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Groq, Inc. v. Groq Health Inc., Judge Vyskocil denied the defendants' trademark summary judgment motion because the plaintiff raised material fact disputes across nearly all likelihood-of-confusion factors.
“Because Groq raises disputes of material fact as to virtually all of the factors set forth in”
Procedural preferences
In Harris v. F. Schumacher & Co., LLC, she denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the defendant's sole dismissal argument relied on a severance agreement outside the pleadings that she could not consider on that motion.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions is also DENIED.”
In Hickey v. Smith, she granted the defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration.
“Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED and this case is stayed pending arbitration.”
At the pleading stage, declined to resolve a copyright fair-use defense against a well-pled claim involving an unaltered licensed photograph.
“the Court cannot accept at this stage of the litigation Defendant’s assertion of the fair-use defense as sufficient to defeat as a matter of law Plaintiff’s well-pled claim of copyright infringement.”
Cautions
After a plaintiff amended in response to a pre-motion warning but still failed to explain how another amendment would cure a franchise-law pleading defect, denied further leave to amend that claim.
“Plaintiff is denied leave to further amend.”
In Computershare Trust Company v. Integrated Eastchase Holdings, she denied the plaintiff’s receiver request without prejudice after counsel missed the hearing on its own motion while diversity jurisdiction remained inadequately established.
“More concerningly, Plaintiff also failed to attend the scheduled hearing on its own motion to appoint a receiver.”
In Wolff, Vyskocil found diversity jurisdiction and a live dispute but abstained from hearing an anticipatory declaratory action over a threatened defamation suit. The dismissal left the underlying defamation merits for ordinary litigation.
“Instead, based on prudential abstention, it dismisses this case to be litigated like any other.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to Counts II and III of the complaint and Count I to the extent it relates to the Charity Program.”
“41(a)(2) is denied”
“motion is granted.”
“Pfizer’s motion is denied”
“grants in part and denies in part Defendants’”
“denies Plaintiff’s request to maintain under seal”
“GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED”
“Plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions is DENIED.”
“this case is STAYED pending arbitration.”
“Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief is hereby DENIED in its entirety.”
“the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED, and the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND”
“Defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.”
“GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- A case-level sample of 21 dockets, dominated by very recent (2026) filings still pending, so this reflects her current intake, not a tenure-wide mix or grant context.
- A notable 2026 cluster is alien-detainee habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. 2241) and other immigration actions, which terminate fast: Arellano v. Warden (1:26-cv-03433, filed 2026-04-24, terminated 2026-05-06, ~12 days), Gomez-Gomez v. Mullin (1:26-cv-03427, filed 2026-04-26, terminated 2026-04-28, 2 days), Doe v. Borgen (1:26-cv-03718, filed 2026-05-05, terminated 2026-05-29, 24 days).
- These fast procedural terminations are not a basis for grounded dispositive-motion latency.
- Separately, a set of her 2019-2020 terminated civil dockets was reviewed to build the motion timeline below; those older commercial, securities, and defamation cases are where her contested dispositive rulings sit.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 16 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 25 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 18 |
| Mar 2022 | 10 | 11 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 6 |
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 Vyskocil: 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 Vyskocil with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vyskocil, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vyskocil's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace