Mark W. Pedersen
How Judge Pedersen rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pedersen
Mark W. Pedersen has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of New York since November 2019. He earned a law degree from SUNY Buffalo Law School and previously served as a career law clerk to District Judge Charles J. Siragusa.
Judge Pedersen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pedersen, 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
Contacting chambers
A request for a remote appearance must be a letter to chambers in advance and give good cause.
“If a remote appearance option is not provided by the Court at the time of scheduling, parties requesting to appear by virtual means are to submit a letter request to chambers in advance of the appearance and provide good cause for the need to appear remotely.”
Motions
Unless the court has provided a date, motions should omit return dates, and the court schedules argument when helpful.
“Unless previously provided with a date by the Court, motions shall not contain return dates.”
Discovery
Discovery disputes begin with a letter motion; the judge generally schedules an informal conference before a formal motion.
“If a discovery dispute arises, the parties shall initially advise the Court of the dispute via letter motion (with copy to opposing counsel).”
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 Pedersen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a case testing whether out-of-state employees could join an FLSA collective action against an employer with no New York headquarters, Pedersen applied Bristol-Myers Squibb's personal-jurisdiction limits to collective actions rather than treating them like Rule 23 class actions, reasoning that each opt-in plaintiff is an independent party whose claim must itself connect to the forum.
“This Court lacks specific jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of out-of-state plaintiffs who would like to join Kimble's collective action for the following reasons. First, I see no reason to analyze this case as I would a Rule 23 class action.”
On a Social Security appeal, Pedersen declined to remand for the Appeals Council to more fully explain its treatment of new medical evidence where the additional material was a small fraction of the record and did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome, treating that harmlessness finding as dispositive independent of any procedural gap.
“Even if the Appeals Council should have discussed this evidence, any error is harmless because the evidence did not show a reasonable probability of changing the ALJ's decision.”
In Marinaro, Pedersen subpoenaed missing treatment notes from the claimant’s psychologist and found that the ALJ’s account of her treatment was inaccurate. He remanded for the Commissioner to assess whether the additional records changed the disability determination.
“the Court finds the ALJ’s assessment that ‘progress notes do not reflect further intervention,’ (R. 19), is not accurate.”
Procedural preferences
On a late motion to amend a complaint filed after the scheduling-order deadline, Pedersen required the movant to address Rule 16(b)'s good-cause and diligence standard, not the more lenient Rule 15(a) standard, and denied the motion where counsel argued only under Rule 15/Rule 6 and where most of the proposed changes did not depend on newly obtained information.
“Where, as here, a scheduling order governs amendments to the complaint... the lenient standard under Rule 15(a)... must be balanced against the requirement under Rule 16(b) that the Court's scheduling order shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause.”
In an unopposed Social Security attorney-fee request, Pedersen reviewed the time between the favorable decision and the benefits award and considered whether the contingency agreement showed overreaching before approving the requested fee.
“counsel obtained a fully favorable outcome without any significant delay... nothing suggests that fraud or overreaching affected the contingency agreement”
Pedersen required a privilege log detailed enough to assess each withheld document’s claimed privilege, and ordered a revised log when the City of Rochester listed documents without enough subject matter or sender-recipient context.
“To sustain its burden, the City needed to disclose ‘the general subject matter of’ the allegedly privileged documents and ‘where not apparent, the relationship of the author, addressees, and recipients to each other,’”
In Singleton v. City of Geneva, Pedersen denied a late amendment because the plaintiff did not seek an extension of the pleading deadline while discovery was pending.
“Singleton should have acted diligently by requesting a timely extension of the motions-to-amend deadline, but he has not explained his failure to do so.”
Cautions
Faced with a defendant found incompetent to stand trial, Pedersen required the government to make a rigorous evidentiary showing, including a multi-day hearing with competing psychiatric experts, before authorizing involuntary medication, and recommended denial where the record did not establish the treatment would likely restore competency without undue risk of harmful side effects.
“the undersigned recommends that the motion be denied”
At a contested detention hearing, Pedersen weighed the specific proffered evidence of dangerousness against the individual defendant's own history and ties to the community, rather than treating the nature of the charges (a January 6 Capitol-riot prosecution) as controlling, and released the defendant on conditions.
“the Court denies the govt's motion for detention, and determines there are conditions which can be set in order to ensure the deft's return to Court and the safety of the community.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court denies without prejudice the request for bifurcation of trial, grants the motion to sever with respect to the claim against Dr. Naz, and otherwise denies without prejudice the motion to sever.”
“insofar as Defendants seek bifurcation of trial under Rule 42, the Court denies that request without prejudice.”
“I summarize my ruling on Kimble's pending motion for corrective action. For the reasons stated here and below, I DENY IN PART and RESERVE IN PART on Kimble's motion for corrective action and equitable tolling.”
“DECISION AND ORDER granting 31 Motion to Change Venue; denying 32 Motion to Strike... The Court sua sponte stays this order for 14 days should Opteon wish to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Thereafter, the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois.”
“denying 32 Cross MOTION to Strike 14 Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff and in Opposition to 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying ECF No. 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting ECF No. 10, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings brought by the Commissioner of Social Security. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.”
“the decision of Defendant Commissioner is Affirmed; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 8) is Denied”
“the decision of Defendant Commissioner is affirmed; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 8) is denied”
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 9), is DENIED. The Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), is GRANTED. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.”
“Plaintiff now requests $13,059.25 in attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 406(b), in accordance with counsel's twenty-five percent contingency-fee agreement... For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.”
“After considering the information from the hearing and the submissions, and for the reasons stated below, the undersigned issues this Report and Recommendation that the district judge deny the government's motion.”
“The Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to defendant Joseph C. Buckley pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and for entry of a default judgment... and that the portion of the Complaint by Plaintiff for monetary damages against defendant Joseph C. Buckley is dismissed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 727 as a consequence of the Order of Discharge, dated January 21, 2021, issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Johnson's second motion to amend, (ECF No. 45), without prejudice.”
“The attached order formalizes the Court's grant of ECF No. 65, Plaintiff's motion for the creation of a supplemental needs trust.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Pedersen's enumerated docket includes a large recurring volume of consent-jurisdiction Social Security disability/SSI appeals, a smaller mix of civil matters referred for pretrial management or accepted by consent for final disposition (products liability, prisoner civil rights, employment/wage claims, mortgage foreclosure), and a high volume of routine criminal 'mj' initial-appearance and detention-hearing matters, including cases transferred from other districts.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 United States District Court for the Western District of New York, not for Judge Pedersen: 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 Pedersen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pedersen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pedersen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace