Robyn F. Tarnofsky
How Judge Tarnofsky rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tarnofsky
Robyn F. Tarnofsky serves as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York. Her chambers are in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in Manhattan.
Judge Tarnofsky's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Tarnofsky, 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 Practice Rules in Civil Cases ↗
- Proposed Case Management Plan and Report of Rule 26(f) Conference ↗
- Discussion Topics for Rule 26(f) Conference ↗
- Confidentiality Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order ↗
- Sample Protocol for Remote Depositions ↗
- Ex Parte Settlement Conference Summary ↗
- Settlement Conference Confidentiality Agreement Form ↗
- Individual Practice Rules in Criminal Cases ↗
Key rules
Motions
Pre-motion conferences are required only for discovery disputes.
“B) Pre-Motion Conferences and Discovery Disputes. A pre-motion conference is not required for any motion except motions seeking relief in connection with discovery disputes (that is, any dispute arising under Rules 26 through 37 or Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This provision applies to both parties and non-parties (for example, those served with a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45).”
Discovery
Before raising a discovery dispute, confer in person or by phone; letters or email alone are insufficient.
“Parties or non-parties seeking to raise a discovery dispute with the Court shall follow Local Rule 37.2 with the following modifications. The party or non-party must first confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person or by telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute. An exchange of emails or letters is not sufficient to meet this obligation. 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 Unit”
Conferences
Absent good cause, seek an adjournment or extension at least one week before the deadline or appearance, except for settlement conferences.
“E) Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. Absent good cause, any request for an extension of time or an adjournment, except those involving adjournments of settlement conferences, shall be made at least one week before the deadline or scheduled appearance. Procedures for requests for adjournments of settlement conferences are set out in Section V(L) below. All other requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be filed on ECF as letter-motions. The letter-motion must state:”
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 Tarnofsky decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Senvest’s petition to quash IRS summonses, she held that the funds’ asserted trade secrets did not require quashing the summonses under the tax code or the U.S.–Canada treaty.
“the Summonses need not be quashed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the Petition (ECF 1) is DENIED and the Motion (ECF 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The motion for discovery (ECF 91) is GRANTED, in that Defendants are directed to produce the emails at issue in unredacted form.”
“The application to adjourn the conference (ECF 114) was denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF 143) is GRANTED IN PART”
“the motion for settlement approval (ECF 12) is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 170) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 169 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 135 days (N = 27).
- Her docket is dominated by Social Security review actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), on which the parties frequently consent to her jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
- Her work also includes IRS third-party summons litigation, employment disputes, contract cases, criminal duty, and referred discovery management in Administrative Procedure Act litigation.
- In referred civil matters she handles general pretrial disputes and may issue recommendations on dispositive motions.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 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 Tarnofsky: 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 Tarnofsky with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tarnofsky, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tarnofsky's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace