Leslie G. Foschio
How Judge Foschio rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Foschio
Leslie G. Foschio served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of New York from 1991 to 2007 and has continued as a recalled magistrate judge. He earned a law degree from the University at Buffalo School of Law in 1965.
Judge Foschio's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Foschio, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Motions to compel receive oral argument; dispositive motions do so only when the court considers it necessary.
“Motions to compel will be scheduled for oral argument at a date determined by Court. Dispositive motions will not be scheduled for oral argument unless the Court deems it necessary, at which time the parties will be notified of an oral argument date.”
Motions
Requests to modify a scheduling order must be made by motion; letter requests are not accepted.
“These requests must be made by motion filed with the Court. Letter requests will not be accepted.”
Discovery
The deposition guidelines apply in every civil case and will be enforced on motions.
“These are so ordered in every civil case and will be enforced on motions.”
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 9, 2026).
- Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Amended General Order 167) ↗
- General Order 157: Disclosure of Members, Shareholders, Partners, and Leaders of Business Organization Parties ↗
- General Order 166: Identification Procedures in Courthouses ↗
- General Order 168: Dispositive Referrals of Social Security Appeals to United States Magistrate Judge ↗
How Judge Foschio decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Social Security appeal, Foschio found on his own review of the record that the claimant’s mental impairments met a disability listing.
“finds that substantial evidence supports that Plaintiff's mental impairments meet the criteria for disability under § 12.04, and Plaintiff is therefore disabled.”
In Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, Foschio reconsidered an order to produce audited financial statements because they did not exist; he held that Rule 34 did not require the defendant to create new documents, while leaving discovery of existing underlying records at issue.
“a party is not required to create documents meeting the document requests, only to produce documents already in existence.”
Ruling on a forum non conveniens motion in an international wrongful-death case, Foschio credited the defendant's binding consent to litigate in the alternative forum and its waiver of limitations defenses as making that forum genuinely adequate, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' expert's criticisms of that country's discovery procedures.
“Schweizer will consent to the jurisdiction of the Mexican courts to litigate this action ... to the extent that any claims that Plaintiffs have against Schweizer became time-barred under Mexican law during the pendency of the litigation, Schweizer agrees to waive any applicable statute of limitations defenses”
In Tia K., Foschio ordered further review of the claimant’s mental limitations after identifying evidence of difficulty adjusting outside supportive housing. He required the agency to address Listing 12.04 and, if necessary, drug and alcohol materiality on remand.
“The matter thus should also be REMANDED to the ALJ for an analysis of the paragraph C criteria.”
Procedural preferences
In Hallmark, Foschio denied leave to file a third amended complaint because its proposed additional allegations were unnecessary to state the existing debt-collection claim.
“Here, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because the third amended complaint Plaintiffs seek leave to file is unnecessary.”
In Cauley, Foschio recommended dismissal as a discovery sanction after the plaintiff failed to comply with two orders that had warned her dismissal was possible.
“Both orders specifically warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order shall subject her to serious sanctions, including dismissal of this action with prejudice ... Plaintiff has demonstrated unexcused and wilful noncompliance with two orders of this court.”
In Williams v. Ontario County Sheriff's Department, Foschio found that the pro se plaintiff's response showed he understood the summary judgment motion, so formal notice under the local rule was unnecessary.
“a district court is not required to explain the nature of summary judgment to a pro se litigant (1) where the pro se litigant's adversary has already provided the litigant with requisite notice, or (2) where the record otherwise makes clear that the litigant understood the nature and consequences of summary judgment.”
In United States ex rel. Pilat v. Amedisys, Foschio reduced the requested Rule 37 fee hours by half after finding the submitted time excessive.
“the court, based on excessive attorney time incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel, finds a reduction of 50% of the total number of attorney hours requested by Plaintiffs’ application is warranted.”
Cautions
In a class-action discovery dispute, Foschio found that the defendant’s reviewed financial statements did not foreclose further discovery into its net worth.
“Significantly, Defendant cites to no authority holding that the production of such Reviewed Statements forecloses further discovery on the issue of a defendant’s net worth and the court’s research reveals none.”
In Timmons v. Artus, Foschio corrected his own limitations calculation after sua sponte review of a habeas petition. He assumed the petitioner’s proposed mailbox and certiorari allowances for argument, applied tolling for pending state collateral attacks, and recommended dismissal because the petition was still filed 295 days late.
“Allowing for the tolling of the statutory limitations period while Petitioner’s collateral attacks on his conviction were pending in state court, and accepting as true Petitioner’s assertion that 32 additional days must be tolled pursuant to the ‘prison mailbox rule,’ the Petition was filed 295 days late.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that this Court accepts Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 89) ... with respect to the recommendation that Defendant's Cross-Motion for Sanctions be granted ... FURTHER, that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“FURTHER, that Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 31) is DENIED for the reasons stated in Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation.”
“Based on the following, Defendants' motion should be GRANTED, and the Clerk of the Court should be directed to close the case.”
“FURTHER, that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds (Docket No. 52) is GRANTED, consistent with Judge Foschio's Report & Recommendation.”
“FURTHER, that Petitioner's petition seeking federal habeas relief (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED as untimely for the reasons set forth in the Amended Report and Recommendation.”
“Based on the following, Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.”
“Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion to strike (Doc. No. 499) is DENIED;”
“Plaintiffs’ motions (Doe. Nos. 71 and 86) to compel production of these documents are GRANTED,”
“Here, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because the third amended complaint Plaintiffs seek leave to file is unnecessary.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 190) is GRANTED; the court's order that C & S produce audited financials for three fiscal years (Doc. No. 184) is VACATED”
“Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 71) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's motion for a protective order is DISMISSED as moot.”
“Judge Foschio entered a Decision and Order/Report and Recommendation (Item 96), in which he recommended that this court grant the motions to dismiss filed by the State Defendants, the Brisbane Defendants, the IRS, Ajit Singh, and Jacqueline Bogdan”
“Judge Foschio recommends granting the motions with respect to the claim for malicious prosecution, but denying them in all other respects.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Foschio's docket includes a large recurring volume of consent-jurisdiction Social Security disability and SSI appeals, a smaller mix of other civil matters accepted by consent for full disposition (Fair Housing Act claims, insurance and property-damage disputes, personal-injury and consumer-protection class actions), and decades of referred pretrial, discovery, and dispositive-motion work for the district's Article III judges, including several long-running class actions and a widely covered contract-fraud dispute over an early ownership claim to Facebook.
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 | 18 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 18 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 20 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 46 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 60 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 36 | 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 Western District of New York, not for Judge Foschio: 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 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 91 | 8.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,344 | 8.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 56 | 28.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,783 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,768 | 15.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,892 | 15.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,130 | 14.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,177 | 14.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,971 | 14.8 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 Foschio with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Foschio, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Foschio's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace