Vernon S. Broderick
How Judge Broderick rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Broderick
Vernon Speede Broderick is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Broderick received a commission on September 10, 2013.
Judge Broderick's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Broderick, 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 ↗
- Certificate Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ↗
- Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Criminal Cases ↗
- Rules for Jury Selection ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not send courtesy copies to chambers unless these practices specifically require them.
“F. Courtesy Copies. Except as otherwise noted in these Rules (e.g., Rules 4.D and 6.E), parties should not send courtesy copies to Chambers.”
Motions
Pre-motion conferences are required only for discovery motions.
“A. Pre-Motion Conferences. Pre-motion conferences are not required, except for motions concerning discovery, which are governed by Section 3 above.”
Discovery
Counsel must describe discovery disputes in one jointly composed letter of no more than five pages.
“3. Discovery Disputes. Unless otherwise directed, counsel should describe their discovery disputes in a single letter, jointly composed, not to exceed five pages. Separate and successive letters will not be read. 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,”
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 Broderick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In In re Pretium Resources Inc. Securities Litigation, he granted a motion to dismiss Exchange Act securities-fraud claims because the plaintiffs had not alleged the requisite scienter.
“Because Plaintiffs fail to allege the requisite scienter needed to plead a claim of securities fraud under the Exchange Act, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
In Kutluca v. PQ New York Inc., Judge Broderick compelled arbitration under an electronically accepted employment agreement and denied leave to amend because the proposed claims were also subject to arbitration.
“because I find that the claims asserted in Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint are also subject to the parties' binding arbitration agreement, the proposed amendment is futile and thus Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amend complaint, (Doc. 87), is DENIED.”
In one contract counterclaim dispute, he treated claims mistakenly filed as a third-party complaint as counterclaims and allowed the additional defendant to be joined under Rule 20. Counsel should analyze the claim’s relationship to the main action before relying on impleader labels.
“Accordingly, the requirements for permissive joinder under Rule 20 are met, and Carter may properly be joined as a counter-defendant.”
Cautions
In City of New York v. Gordon, he granted the City's summary-judgment motion in part on liability but denied it as to damages because its damages theory lacked admissible evidentiary support.
“Because I conclude that the City's theory of liability is legally valid and supported by admissible record evidence, the City's Motion is GRANTED in part. However, because the City's theory of damages is lacking in admissible evidentiary support, the City's Motion is DENIED with respect to damages.”
In a creditor’s bankruptcy appeal, he affirmed dismissal of an involuntary petition where the creditor already had a state law collection remedy; bankruptcy would not let the creditor reach property protected by state tenancy law. The order treats the availability of a state remedy as material even when that remedy is less valuable.
“Appellant’s inability to execute on the wife’s interest under New York law does not justify relief in bankruptcy.”
In Kalia, Broderick found that a bare comparator allegation did not plausibly show discriminatory motive for the professor's disparate-treatment claim.
“These conclusory allegations do not raise a minimal inference of discriminatory motive, and do not support a disparate treatment claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the CFTC has stated a claim against NYMEX upon which relief can be granted, and, for the reasons that follow, I deny NYMEX's Motion to Dismiss.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in its entirety because Plaintiff fails to state a claim of disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 791 et seq. ... For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant's Motion in its entirety, and all of Plaintiffs claims are dismissed.”
“Before me is the City's unopposed summary judgment motion against RIL (the ‘Motion’). Because I conclude that the City's theory of liability is legally valid and supported by admissible record evidence, the City's Motion is GRANTED in part. However, because the City's theory of damages is lacking in admissible evidentiary support, the City's Motion is DENIED with respect to damages.”
“Before me is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim. Because Plaintiffs fail to allege the requisite scienter needed to plead a claim of securities fraud under the Exchange Act, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, I find that Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the parties' binding arbitration agreement, and thus Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, (Doc. 52), is GRANTED.”
“In addition, because I find that the claims asserted in Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint are also subject to the parties' binding arbitration agreement, the proposed amendment is futile and thus Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amend complaint, (Doc. 87), is DENIED.”
“suggesting that: (1) ‘[t]he Wear and Tear Claim and the Contract Claim be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend’; and (2) ‘[t]he Section 349, Good Faith, and Unjust Enrichment Claims be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.’ ... I therefore ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”
“suggesting that I grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss and the case be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in California—‘where HSF in subject to personal jurisdiction’—and without leave to amend. ... I therefore ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”
“suggesting that the Third-Party Complaint against Collins be dismissed without prejudice in favor of arbitration. ... I therefore ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. 58), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART-”
“Plaintiffs motion to remand this action to state court is DENIED”
“AXA’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs tort claim of financial unseaworthiness, and is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs contract claim.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.”
“Plaintiffs cross motion to amend the First Amended Complaint is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The terminated dockets on the visible page were all filed before his September 2013 commission (one terminated in 2005, before he was a judge at all), so they were reassigned to him as the current seat-holder, and their filed-to-terminated durations reflect prior judges' handling as well as his, not his end-to-end case management.
- They are recorded as raw computed durations with this caveat, not as a measure of his pace.
- The nature-of-suit mix spans prisoner petitions, prisoner civil rights, employment and civil-rights (jobs), FLSA labor, and other statutory actions.
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 | 97 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 73 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 97 | 73 |
| Sep 2025 | 86 | 63 |
| Mar 2025 | 75 | 58 |
| Sep 2024 | 104 | 70 |
| Mar 2024 | 101 | 66 |
| Sep 2023 | 78 | 69 |
| Mar 2023 | 97 | 73 |
| Sep 2022 | 87 | 73 |
| Mar 2022 | 97 | 78 |
| Sep 2021 | 124 | 86 |
| Mar 2021 | 160 | 81 |
| Sep 2020 | 60 | 71 |
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 Broderick: 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 Broderick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Broderick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Broderick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace