Ona T. Wang
How Judge Wang rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wang
Ona T. Wang became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York in 2018. She previously practiced at BakerHostetler and clerked for U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts. She earned an A.B. from Harvard University and a law degree from New York University.
Judge Wang's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wang, 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.
- Individual Practices in Civil Cases ↗
- Model Joint Electronic Discovery Submission and Proposed Order ↗
- Proposed Case Management Plan for Pro Se Cases ↗
- Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan ↗
- Settlement Conference Summary ↗
- Stipulation and Model Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Letters are limited to 1,500 words, with the stated exclusions.
“Word/Page Limit. Whether filed electronically or not, letters may not exceed 1,500 words, with single‐spaced text (exclusive of exhibits, headings, captions, and signatures). If filed by a party not represented by an attorney and handwritten, letters may not exceed 5 pages.”
Motions
A pre-motion conference is generally required for non-discovery motions, subject to the listed exceptions.
“c. Pre‐Motion Conferences. For motions concerning discovery disputes, see Section IV(b) above. A pre‐motion conference is required for all other motions except: (1) motions that are required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be made by a certain time; (2) motions by litigants in actions where a party is incarcerated and pro se; (3) motions for reconsideration; (4) motions for a new”
Discovery
After conferring in person or by phone, a discovery dispute may be raised by ECF letter-motion of no more than 1,500 words.
“b. Discovery Disputes. Parties shall follow Local Rule 37.2 with the following modifications. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first meet and 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 submit an ECF letter‐motion to the Court or, if applicable, to the Pro se Intake Clerk, no longer than 1,500 words, single‐spaced, explaining the nature of the dispute and”
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 Wang decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Higgins v. Berryhill, Magistrate Judge Wang granted the claimant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remanded the disability appeal for further agency proceedings.
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED and Defendant's motion is DENIED.”
In Galarza v. Commissioner of Social Security, she remanded after finding that the ALJ had not properly addressed the supportability and consistency factors for medical opinions under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c.
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, and the case is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
Procedural preferences
In Torbarina v. Berryhill, acting on the parties' 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) consent, she affirmed the Commissioner's decision as supported by substantial evidence, denied the claimant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted the Commissioner's cross-motion.
“the Court affirms the Commissioner's decision, having found that the decision was based on the correct legal standard and was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby DENIED and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED and Defendant's motion is DENIED.”
“the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED to the extent that the case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this opinion”
“the Court affirms the Commissioner's decision, having found that the decision was based on the correct legal standard and was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby DENIED and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby DENIED and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED”
“Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that his suit was timely filed or that some extraordinary circumstance prevented a timely filing, the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, and the case is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, and the case is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED in part, and the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED in part. This matter is remanded for further administrative review, including but not limited to a de novo hearing and a new decision.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is GRANTED. The SSA is directed to approve a payment of $46,439.48 to Binder & Binder, and upon receipt of that payment, Plaintiff’s counsel shall refund the previously awarded EAJA fees in the amount of $7,119.89 directly to Plaintiff.”
“finds that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.”
“Class Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED in part with respect to privilege waiver and DENIED in part with respect to the crime-fraud exception.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The visible docket slice is heavily Social Security disability appeals (SSID Tit. XVI, DIWC/DIWW, RSI), the kind of case the court assigns or refers by consent to magistrate judges, plus FLSA wage-and-hour (many in the 2016-2018 window), copyright, contract, ADA-employment, and 2025 criminal duty (United States v. Chin). Reflects her assigned/consent docket, not a tenure-wide caseload.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 14 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 0 |
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 Wang: 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 Wang with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wang, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wang's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace