Kiyo A. Matsumoto
How Judge Matsumoto decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On emergency relief she defers heavily to government public-health and operational judgments: in the COVID-vaccine-mandate context she found a 'compelling justification' for the mandate and held that balancing competing public-health and business interests is 'up to local government, not the courts,' so a preliminary injunction against such a mandate faces a steep likelihood-of-success hurdle.
“Ultimately, it is up to local government, not the courts, to balance the competing public health and business interests[,] and here, the New York City government and NYC DOE have done so in issuing and enforcing the COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate for employees of the Department of Education.”
Procedural preferences
She enforces the Lugosch presumption of public access to documents filed in connection with dispositive motions: a party seeking to seal summary-judgment materials must overcome that presumption with specific, on-the-record findings that higher values require a narrowly tailored sealing; a generalized prior protective order or a desire for confidentiality is not enough. Expect denial of broad sealing, with only narrow privacy redactions permitted.
“the court cannot make specific, on-the-record findings that any higher values necessitate a narrowly tailored sealing. Accordingly, the parties should confer and determine whether any particular information should be redacted for privacy purposes.”
Cautions
Litigant misconduct has hard consequences in her courtroom. She will adopt a recommendation to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE as a sanction where a (even pro se) litigant engages in threatening, harassing, or abusive conduct toward opposing counsel or the court after explicit warnings -- and will warn that continued misconduct may produce a filing bar across cases.
“the court ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS Defendants' [101] motion for sanctions, and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. Plaintiff is HEREBY WARNED that similar misconduct in any other case before this court may result in additional sanctions, including ... an order barring Plaintiff from filing further actions without court approval.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS Defendants' [101] motion for sanctions, and DISMISSES this action with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's application to vacate his sentence is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and the application to remove petitioner from ‘refuse-to-pay’ status is denied and dismissed.”
“After reviewing the memorandum and CCRB report, the court can discern no reason to seal the documents, particularly because the CCRB's investigation appears to have concluded.”
“Clanton's pre-trial motion to suppress evidence and Clanton's request for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) are DENIED.”
“Clanton's Daubert motion to exclude testimony by the Government's expert witness is also DENIED.”
“Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED in their entirety.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay this action is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons that follow, Value's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's entitlement to a foreclosure and sale is granted.”
“grants defendants' motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.”
“denies defendants' motion to compel arbitration;”
“denies defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue;”
“The court concludes that defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. First, U.S. Grace Road Church is dismissed from this action without prejudice. Second, plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim is dismissed with prejudice. The balance of defendants' motion is denied.”
“Defendants' motions to preclude Dr. Pugh's testimony are DENIED as to his opinion on the design of the Subject Vehicle's SCAD, and as to his opinion on the adequacy of the warnings about the SCAD.”
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED as to Plaintiff's manufacturing defect, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are DENIED as to Plaintiff's design defect and failure to warn claims, as well as the breach of implied warranty, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and New York General Business Law claims.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 473 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 70 days (N = 3).
A senior Eastern District of New York judge (active seat 2008-2022) sitting in Brooklyn. A 2018-2019 sample of her docket is a mix of criminal matters (several sealed indictments; United States v. Morales-Morales), prisoner habeas (Joseph v. Pressly), Section 1983 and prisoner civil-rights cases, Administrative Procedure Act review (American Steamship Owners Mutual P&I Association v. United States), and miscellaneous dockets. Her written orders add COVID-vaccine-mandate employment, pro se prisoner civil rights, habeas, and a civilian-review-board Section 1983 matter. The mix is qualitative, drawn from case-level records.
Put Judge Matsumoto's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Matsumoto actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Matsumoto's own signed orders and cites them.