Victoria Reznik
How Judge Reznik rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Reznik
Victoria Reznik has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York since May 2023. Her chambers are in the federal courthouse in White Plains, New York.
Judge Reznik's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Reznik, 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 Practices ↗
- Model Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order ↗
- Model Joint Electronic Discovery Submission and Proposed Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
When a pre-motion conference is required, file a letter rather than a letter-motion, limited to three single-spaced pages.
“applications made by order to show cause. Where a pre-motion conference is required, the moving party shall file a letter (not a letter-motion) no longer than three (3) single-spaced pages in length, setting forth the basis for the anticipated”
Motions
For most non-discovery civil motions, request a pre-motion conference, subject to the listed exceptions.
“A. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. For motions concerning discovery disputes, see Section 2A above. For all other motions, a pre-motion conference is required, except for (i) motions to dismiss in lieu of an answer; (ii) motions for admission pro hac vice; (iii) motions for reargument or reconsideration; (iv) motions listed in Fed. R. App. 4(a)(4)(A); (v) any post-judgment motions; (vi) motions in limine; (vii) motions to dismiss habeas corpus petitions; and (viii)”
Discovery
After conferring in person or by phone, a discovery dispute may be raised by ECF letter-motion of no more than three single-spaced pages.
“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 no longer than three (3) single- spaced pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and requesting a pre-motion”
Conferences
Absent an emergency, seek an adjournment or extension at least 48 hours before the proceeding or deadline.
“Scheduling Order must be attached. Absent an emergency, a request for an adjournment of a court proceeding or an extension of a deadline must be made at least 48 hours before the scheduled proceeding or deadline. An adjournment”
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 Reznik decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an employment-discovery dispute, Reznik required the party asserting attorney-client privilege to show that obtaining legal advice was the predominant purpose of the disputed executive-session communications.
“the mere presence of counsel during a discussion, even one allegedly protected by the attorney-client privilege, does not automatically preclude disclosure of the discussion's underlying facts.”
In Social Security review, she upheld the administrative decision where the administrative law judge permissibly resolved conflicting educational and medical evidence and any arguable error concerning school absences was harmless.
“Plaintiff may disagree with how the ALJ weighed the conflicting academic sources and medical opinions, but this disagreement does not amount to legal error.”
In a child-benefits appeal, Reznik remanded where the administrative law judge treated improved performance with assistance as independent functioning without assessing the effect of continuing support.
“the Court cannot discern whether he considered the functional significance of the supports J.H. required”
In another benefits appeal, she upheld the symptom analysis because the administrative law judge identified objective and treatment evidence supporting the functional assessment.
“And the evidence the ALJ identified provides substantial evidence for that determination.”
Procedural preferences
In FLSA settlement review, Reznik calculated the one-third contingency benchmark after subtracting costs and used the lodestar as a reasonableness cross-check.
“Plaintiff's counsel erroneously calculated the fee using the total settlement inclusive of costs ... rather than the settlement net of costs”
In two Social Security fee orders following agreed remands, Reznik compared the requested contingent fee with counsel’s work, the benefit obtained, and any delay, then required refund of earlier statutory fee awards.
“Upon receipt of this award, Plaintiff’s counsel shall promptly refund to Plaintiff $7,325.64, which represents the EAJA fees that counsel previously received.”
Early in damages discovery, Reznik required a factual basis for the plaintiff’s estimate while declining to require a customer-by-customer breakdown before expert discovery.
“At this early stage of fact discovery, it is premature for Defendants to expect a customer-by-customer breakdown of the damages asserted.”
Cautions
She rejected a proposed wage-and-hour settlement where fees and costs would consume roughly seventy percent of the fund, while inviting a corrected agreement.
“Such a large allocation to counsel, as compared to Plaintiff, is neither reasonable nor fair absent special circumstances”
Privilege objections remained available for specific questions directed to counsel, but did not justify shielding all underlying factual discussions among school-board members.
“Defendant may still raise attorney-client objections to specific questions if appropriate.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' request to depose witnesses on the matters discussed during the executive meetings at issue.”
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED”
“the Commissioner's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED”
“the parties' application for approval of the proposed settlement agreement is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The following claims are DISMISSED: (1) Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims under Title VII (Count 3) and Section 1983 (Count 7) against all Defendants; and (2) Plaintiff's discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under the NYSHRL against all Defendants (Counts 4, 5, and 6). The following claims may proceed: (1) Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII (Counts 1 and 2) and (2) Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under Section 1983 against Defendant K. Veronica Smith (Count 7). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Opinion and Order.”
“the motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $7,500.00 in fees to be paid out of Plaintiff’s past- due benefits.”
“the motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $13,632.00 in fees to be paid out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims under Section 1983 against Defendants Beverly Jones, Pauline Pierce, and Lynne Middleton (Count 7), but DENIED as to his hostile work environment claim under Title VII, and all NYSHRL claims.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED”
“the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED”
“Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s motion for pro bono counsel is DENIED.”
“the motion for summary judgment by Defendants Putnam County, Robert Langley, Jr., Ronald Yeager, Daniel Hunsberger, Ryan Diskin, Vincent Dalo, and William Quick is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The targeted ten-matter sample contains two wage-and-hour matters, three employment cases, two personal-injury actions, and three Social Security appeals. Three earlier matters were marked terminated in docket metadata; the two later appeals had entered judgments but still lacked termination dates in that metadata.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, not for Judge Reznik: 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 Reznik with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Reznik, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Reznik's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace