Paul G. Gardephe
How Judge Gardephe rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gardephe
Paul G. Gardephe is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Gardephe received a commission on August 8, 2008. Judge Gardephe assumed senior status on August 9, 2023.
Judge Gardephe's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gardephe, 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 of Practice in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Criminal Cases ↗
- Individual Trial Practices ↗
- Model Protective Order ↗
- Supplemental Rules for Maritime Cases ↗
Key rules
Filing
Send chambers a courtesy copy of each ECF document longer than five pages.
“A. ECF-Filed Documents Over Five Pages. One courtesy copy of any document filed on ECF longer than five pages should be sent to Chambers. Courtesy copies of documents”
Motions
Pre-motion conferences are required for the specified discovery, amendment, sanctions, transfer, summary judgment, and other listed motions.
“A. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion conferences are required for the following motions: discovery motions, motions to amend pleadings, motions to file a third party complaint, motions for sanctions, transfer motions, summary judgment motions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 motions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 motions, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 motions. Pre-motion conferences are not otherwise required. To request a pre-motion conference, send the Court a”
Discovery
Counsel should present discovery disputes in one jointly composed letter.
“E. Discovery Disputes. Unless otherwise directed, counsel should describe their discovery disputes in a single letter, jointly composed. Strict adherence to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), the ‘meet and confer’ rule, is required, and should be described in the joint submission as to time, place, and duration, naming the counsel involved in the discussion. The joint letter shall describe concisely the issues in dispute and the respective position of each party, with citations for supporting authority. Letters regarding discovery disputes should be filed in”
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 Gardephe decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one pregnancy-discrimination dispute, he denied summary judgment on claims with disputed evidence of motive and granted it on a retaliation claim without evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the protected report.
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) will be DENIED as to Herbert’s discrimination claims, because there are material issues of fact as to whether Dixon’s decision to demote Herbert was motivated in whole or in part by Herbert’s pregnancy. Defendants’ motion will be GRANTED as to the whistleblower retaliation claim, however, because there is no evidence that Dixon was aware — prior to demoting Herbert— that Herbert had reported her alleged misconduct to school district authorities.”
Procedural preferences
In the cited wage dispute, the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims tied to the federal overtime claim because they arose from the same alleged employment practices.
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion will otherwise be DENIED.”
In a securities action involving overlapping proposed classes, he appointed co-lead plaintiffs after finding that each had the largest financial interest in a different class.
“Montague Street Group and Baron will be appointed as co-lead plaintiffs of this consolidated action”
Cautions
In one negligent-hiring and supervision suit, he granted summary judgment because the plaintiff offered no evidence that the institutional defendants knew or should have known of the alleged propensity for abuse.
“Because Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Defendants knew or should have known of Father Kennedy’s alleged propensity to commit sexual abuse, Plaintiffs negligence claims fail as a matter of law, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be granted.”
In a cargo-damage dispute, unclear evidence about the shipper’s contractual relationship with the logistics provider prevented summary judgment on liability limits, although the defendant prevailed on a separate tort claim. Parties moving on a contract limitation should establish the controlling agreement and the provider’s role.
“Because the contractual relationship — if any — between UPS and Philips at that time is critical, disputed, and entirely unclear, the parties’ motions for summary judgment — except as to Plaintiffs tort claim — will be denied.”
In one securities case, he left the statutory discovery stay in place because the plaintiffs did not show a sufficiently imminent prospect of harm while dismissal motions remained pending. A request to lift a discovery stay should identify concrete near-term prejudice.
“Plaintiffs have not shown, however, a sufficiently imminent prospect of harm”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings will be GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) will be DENIED as to Herbert’s discrimination claims, because there are material issues of fact as to whether Dixon’s decision to demote Herbert was motivated in whole or in part by Herbert’s pregnancy. Defendants’ motion will be GRANTED as to the whistleblower retaliation claim, however, because there is no evidence that Dixon was aware — prior to demoting Herbert— that Herbert had reported her alleged misconduct to school district authorities.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to the City of New York but otherwise denied, and Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment is granted as to Defendant Harper’s liability but otherwise denied.”
“For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion will be treated as one for summary judgment and will be GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion will otherwise be DENIED.”
“Because Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Defendants knew or should have known of Father Kennedy’s alleged propensity to commit sexual abuse, Plaintiffs negligence claims fail as a matter of law, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be granted.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act and Donnelly Act claims is granted. Plaintiff Wyckoffs claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act are dismissed as to all Defendants other than the Kansas City Royals.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 16) and to close this case.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs (1) disparate treatment discrimination claims under Title VII, the ADA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL; (2) hostile work environment claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, to the extent those claims are premised on gender or race; (3) NYSHRL retaliation claim; and (4) FMLA interference and retaliation claims.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.”
“Defendant UPS’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 17) is granted as to Plaintiffs tort claim but otherwise denied.”
“Plaintiff AIG’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 22) is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Duration sample drawn from 20 civil cases filed in a single window (January-February 2017) and since terminated; durations are filed-minus-terminated. The mix below is that window, not a tenure-wide caseload. The judge's current pending docket is dominated by criminal cases and prisoner petitions, which carry no completed durations.
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 | 54 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 2 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 90 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 54 | 90 |
| Sep 2025 | 49 | 79 |
| Mar 2025 | 59 | 68 |
| Sep 2024 | 40 | 66 |
| Mar 2024 | 53 | 75 |
| Sep 2023 | 58 | 77 |
| Mar 2023 | 80 | 65 |
| Sep 2022 | 84 | 53 |
| Mar 2022 | 45 | 47 |
| Sep 2021 | 35 | 81 |
| Mar 2021 | 12 | 74 |
| Sep 2020 | 14 | 63 |
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 Gardephe: 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 Gardephe with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gardephe, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gardephe's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace