Leslie G. Foschio

United States District Court for the Western District of New York 16 signed orders read

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 has been willing to find disability sua sponte at step three even where the plaintiff did not raise the argument, once the record clearly satisfies a listing -- reversing for an award of benefits rather than remanding for further proceedings when the evidence leaves no genuine dispute.

“the court, sua sponte, finds that substantial evidence supports that Plaintiff's mental impairments meet the criteria for disability under Sec. 12.04, and Plaintiff is therefore disabled.”

On a discovery dispute over what documents a defendant must produce, Foschio holds close to the text of Rule 34: a party cannot be compelled to create documents (like newly audited financial statements) that do not already exist, even where doing so would be the most convenient way to answer a net-worth question, but existing underlying records remain discoverable.

“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”

Procedural preferences

Foschio denies motions to amend a complaint where the proposed new factual allegations are not actually necessary to state the claim already pled, rather than assessing them purely for futility or prejudice -- a pleading-efficiency screen distinct from the usual Rule 15 analysis.

“Plaintiffs' motion should be denied because the third amended complaint Plaintiffs seek leave to file is unnecessary.”

In discovery-sanctions practice, Foschio gives a noncompliant party clear, repeated warnings that dismissal is a possible consequence before recommending it, and looks for a pattern of willful noncompliance with multiple prior orders rather than a single missed deadline.

“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.”

On a pro se defendant's summary judgment motion styled ambiguously, Foschio looks to whether the record shows the pro se party actually understood the nature and consequences of summary judgment before requiring formal notice, rather than applying a rigid procedural rule.

“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.”

Cautions

In class-action discovery disputes over a defendant's financial condition, Foschio has required production of underlying financial records beyond a defendant's own summary financial statements, rejecting the argument that a reviewed (but not independently audited) statement forecloses further discovery into net worth.

“production of the C & S's Reviewed Statements, although relevant to the question of C & S's net worth, does not foreclose Plaintiff's discovery of C & S's financial information upon which such Reviewed Statements were based.”

Foschio treats a habeas petitioner's own procedural history strictly against AEDPA's one-year clock, recalculating the limitations period sua sponte when the record suggested an earlier miscalculation, even while extending the petitioner every available tolling benefit (the prison mailbox rule, the certiorari window) before concluding the petition was still untimely.

“Based on the foregoing, the Petition should be DISMISSED as untimely filed.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Cauley v. Ingram Micro, Inc.
1:99-cv-00243 · 2003-05-29
Motions to compel (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Judge Foschio's Decision and Order (Docket No. 72) was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law ... IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections (Docket No. 74) to the Decision and Order of Magistrate Judge Foschio are DENIED.”

Cauley v. Ingram Micro, Inc.
1:99-cv-00243 · 2004-01-06
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Dean v. School District of the City of Niagara Falls, NY
1:07-cv-00110 · 2009-05-07
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“FURTHER, that Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 31) is DENIED for the reasons stated in Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation.”

Williams v. Ontario County Sheriff's Department
1:05-cv-00833 · 2009-09-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Based on the following, Defendants' motion should be GRANTED, and the Clerk of the Court should be directed to close the case.”

Navarrete De Pedrero v. Schweizer Aircraft Corp.
1:08-cv-00099 · 2009-03-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“FURTHER, that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds (Docket No. 52) is GRANTED, consistent with Judge Foschio's Report & Recommendation.”

Timmons v. Artus
1:06-cv-00365 · 2009-12-16
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“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.”

Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP
1:11-cv-00842 · 2012-06-19
Motion to amend complaint (plaintiff) Granted

“Based on the following, Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.”

Ceglia v. Zuckerberg
1:10-cv-00569 · 2012-10-31
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“Based on the following, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.”

Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz
1:11-cv-00842 · 2014-05-07
Motion to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“Here, Plaintiffs' motion should be denied because the third amended complaint Plaintiffs seek leave to file is unnecessary.”

Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP
1:11-cv-00842 · 2014-05-13
Motion to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“Here, Plaintiffs' motion should be denied because the third amended complaint Plaintiffs seek leave to file is unnecessary.”

Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz
1:11-cv-00842 · 2014-10-08
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Granted

“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”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 71) is GRANTED.”

Motion for protective order (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant's motion for a protective order is DISMISSED as moot.”

Singh v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance
1:06-cv-00299 · 2011-10-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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”

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.

Put Judge Foschio's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Foschio actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Foschio's own signed orders and cites them.