Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 30, 2025

Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services

Full caption

Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al.

Judge
Vargas
Docket
1:24-cv-09778
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cordero v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Judge Vargas denied discovery in a Medicare-benefits case and set deadlines for motions.

Who this affects

Richard Cordero and the defendants, including the Government, EmblemHealth, and Maximus Federal Services; the order denied the plaintiff’s discovery request and established briefing deadlines.

What happened

Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al. concerns review of administrative decisions about Social Security benefits, including Medicare. The parties submitted proposals about the next steps in the case.

Richard Cordero requested permission to conduct discovery, but the Government, EmblemHealth, and Maximus Federal Services opposed that request. The court denied discovery because review under the cited federal law generally relies on the existing administrative record rather than additional evidence.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas set deadlines for the Government’s and EmblemHealth’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and for the parties’ responses and replies. The order did not decide those pending motions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services · No. 1:24-cv-09778
Judge
Vargas
Date
Sept. 30, 2025

Background

The court had previously ordered each party to submit a status letter proposing next steps. Richard Cordero requested permission to engage in discovery. The Government—the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the other named federal defendants—submitted a joint response with EmblemHealth opposing discovery and proposing a schedule for motions for judgment on the pleadings. Maximus Federal Services, Inc., which had a fully briefed motion to dismiss pending, also opposed discovery.

Discovery ruling

The court explained that review of administrative decisions about entitlement to Social Security benefits, including Medicare, generally proceeds on a closed administrative record. Citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court stated that it may consider only the pleadings and administrative record and that neither side may submit additional evidence to the district court. The court therefore denied Cordero’s request for discovery.

Briefing schedule and disposition

EmblemHealth filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 26,

  1. The court ordered the Government to file its motion for judgment on the pleadings by October 10, 2025; Cordero to file oppositions or a cross-motion responding to the Government’s and EmblemHealth’s motions by November 7, 2025; the Government and EmblemHealth to file oppositions or replies by December 5, 2025; and Cordero to file reply papers by January 9,
  2. The court directed the clerk to terminate ECF No.
  3. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas did not decide the pending motions in this order.
The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.