Valerie E. Caproni
How Judge Caproni rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Caproni
Valerie Elaine Caproni is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Caproni received a commission on December 2, 2013. Judge Caproni assumed senior status on January 7, 2025.
Judge Caproni's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Caproni, 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.
- Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Fillable) ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Criminal Cases ↗
Key rules
Filing
Within two business days after the reply is served, the movant must deliver one tabbed binder of all motion papers.
“C. Courtesy Copies. Not later than two (2) business days after the reply has been served, the movant must mail or hand-deliver to the Court one courtesy copy of all papers relevant to the motion, including those opposing the motion, in a tabbed three-ring binder. Exhibits (if any) must also be organized in a tabbed three-ring”
Motions
Written pre-motion submissions are unnecessary, but a proposed motion to strike requires a chambers teleconference first.
“A. Pre-Motion Submissions. Written pre-motion submissions are not required for any motion. Before filing a Motion to Strike, the moving party must coordinate a teleconference with Chambers to discuss the proposed motion.”
Discovery
If a discovery meet-and-confer fails, jointly call chambers for a teleconference.
“B. Discovery Disputes. In the event of a discovery dispute: 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 process fails and the Court’s intervention is required, the parties must jointly call Chambers to hold a joint teleconference with the Court for prompt resolution of the dispute. The parties should email the Chambers inbox”
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 Caproni decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ragusa v. City of New York, the court allowed a newly represented plaintiff to amend remaining municipal-liability claims after a jury verdict on his individual claim. The order illustrates how a specific, potentially curable pleading may receive leave to amend.
“When a party requests leave to amend, however, permission is freely given when justice so requires. ... Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff, who is now represented by able pro bono counsel, leave to amend his complaint against the Monell Defendants.”
Procedural preferences
In an enforcement action, the court found that selective, ambiguous denials did not satisfy Rule 8 even though the defendant was representing himself. An answer should make clear which allegations are admitted and which are denied.
“These ambiguous denials do not comply with the minimum requirements under Rule 8, even accounting for Penn’s pro se status, because Penn denied knowledge adequate to form a belief only as to some of the SEC’s allegations.”
Cautions
In a contract dispute, factual questions about approval of additional work and the value of parts prevented a complete summary-judgment victory for either side. The court granted the plaintiff partial relief and denied the defendant’s cross-motion.
“For the following reasons, TAP’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and IAG’s motion is DENIED.”
In a 2026 securities case, the court held that alleged inventory problems and warnings to management did not, without more, show contemporaneous fraudulent intent. The opinion distinguishes a risky business decision from a plausibly pleaded fraud.
“there is no reason to believe that Defendants’ decision not to heed the dealers’ and former employees’ warnings or otherwise adjust prices or inventory was rooted in anything more than strategic miscalculation.”
In one wage case, a proposed nationwide group of managers exceeded what the plaintiffs’ declarations and testimony supported. The court denied conditional collective certification while allowing a narrower renewed request; counsel should match the proposed group to the employees supported by the evidence.
“These statements are simply insufficient to give rise to an inference that Plaintiffs are ‘similarly situated’ to a Covered Employee class consisting of some 480 managerial employees employed at Hudson’s airport and commuter station locations nationally.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the following reasons, UBS’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Fixing Members’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Federated moves for summary judgment on both claims. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 76. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED in its entirety.”
“the Court converts the SEC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment and GRANTS that motion in its entirety.”
“The Court further DISMISSES Penn’s counterclaims without prejudice.”
“Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and the FAC is DISMISSED.”
“For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.”
“For the following reasons, TAP’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and IAG’s motion is DENIED.”
“the Sherlip-Barrett Group’s motion for appointment as interim class counsel is GRANTED.”
“Robbins Geller’s motion is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“the Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to amend.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the above stated reasons, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendant, to terminate Dkt. 31, and to terminate the case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant City of New York’s amended motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs request for leave to amend her complaint is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample of the judge's current case assignments. The visible slice is entirely recently filed and pending, so it reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload, and carries no filed-minus-terminated 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 | 2 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 20 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 22 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 55 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 30 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 32 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 29 |
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 Caproni: 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 Caproni with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Caproni, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Caproni's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace