Biography; Joint Status Report; Sample Scheduling Order; AI Guidelines for all Criminal and Civil Cases; Consent Form After Referral; Trial and Hearing Rules; 2026 Civil Trial Schedule; 2027 Civil Trial Schedule

=== Biography ===

Jason A. Robertson serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. An Oklahoma native with deep family roots in the district, he brings over 25 years of legal experience to the federal bench. Judge Robertson began his career as an Assistant Public Defender in Tulsa County, where he represented hundreds of individuals charged with felony crimes. He later transitioned to private practice, and rose to partner at one of the oldest and most respected defense laws firms in the state of Oklahoma, developing a broad litigation portfolio and trying cases to verdict in state and federal courts across Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas. His civil litigation experience includes general liability, product and premises liability, civil rights, construction disputes, police misconduct, medical malpractice, municipal and professional liability, pharmacy liability, nursing home abuse, automobile and trucking accidents, criminal law, and bad faith insurance litigation. He also served as general counsel to tribal-affiliated business enterprises and as a mediator, handling complex multi-party disputes across the region. Appointed to the federal bench in 2022, Judge Robertson now presides over a full range of civil and criminal matters, including evidentiary hearings, settlement conferences, and jury selection in felony trials. Due to his large consent docket, he also regularly conducts civil trials spanning the full spectrum of federal civil litigation—including employment law, constitutional claims, class action, contractual disputes, and tort actions. He serves concurrently as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Tulsa College of Law, where he teaches trial advocacy, legal ethics, and courtroom leadership. Beyond the bench, Judge Robertson is a frequent speaker at continuing legal education programs and legal symposia across Oklahoma, including presentations for the Federal Bar Association, Tulsa County Bar Association, and several law schools. He is deeply committed to civic education, regularly addressing high school leadership classes, civic organizations, and student groups about the role of the judiciary, constitutional values, and pathways into the legal profession. Judge Robertson’s judicial service reflects trial-tested experience, constitutional discipline, and professional integrity. Anchored in a lifelong connection to Oklahoma and a career-long commitment to public trust, legal education, and the fair administration of justice.

=== Joint Status Report ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) vs. (1) Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s). Case No. JURY DEMANDED: Yes No JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) a meeting was held on at . Plaintiff(s) appearing by counsel Defendant(s) appearing by counsel I. All parties consent to trial before Magistrate Judge? Yes No If you mark "yes", you will be deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge without the necessity for the filing or submission of any other documentation. The United States Magistrate Judge will exercise complete jurisdiction over this case through and including trial and the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a). If you mark “no”, the case will immediately be reassigned to a United States District Judge. II. Summary of Claims: III. Summary of Defenses: IV. Motions Pending: Please include Docket Number, Title of Pleading, and date filed. V. Are Dispositive Motions Anticipated? If so, describe them. VI. Stipulations: A. B. C. D. Jurisdiction Admitted: Venue Appropriate: Facts: Law: Last updated 03/26/24 1 Yes Yes No, Explain: No, Explain: Please provide appropriate stipulations of fact and law. “None at this time” is not an appropriate response. VII. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Discovery Plan: The parties jointly propose to the Court the following discovery plan: (Use separate paragraphs or subparagraphs as necessary if parties disagree.) Have initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) been exchanged AND FILED? Yes No If NO – the parties shall exchange and file their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures within 10 days of the entry of this Joint Status Report. 1. Plaintiff(s) shall submit a calculation of every category of damages requested; 2. Defendant(s) shall provide to Plaintiff(s) a certified copy of any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. A copy of the Declarations Sheet alone does not meet this requirement; and, 3. All parties shall exchange color copies of all exhibits and electronically stored information identified under 26(a)(1)(ii iii) and/or (iv). Note that pursuant to Rule 26 and this Order, all parties are under an affirmative duty to (i) comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements, and (ii) notify the court of any nondisclosure so that the issue can be promptly resolved. Failure of any party to disclose information, or failure of any party to bring disclosure issues to the court’s attention in a timely manner, may result in sanctions, including prohibiting the use of that information at trial, pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1). If applicable, have disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 been filed? Yes No, Explain: Should any changes be made in the limitations on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules? Yes No, Explain: Discovery will be needed on the following subjects: Should discovery be limited at this time to any particular subject matters or issues? _____ Yes No Explain: Phased Discovery requested (If requested, the in-person Joint Status Conference cannot be waived): Yes No Last updated 03/26/24 2 Is there a need for any other special discovery management orders by the court? No, Explain: ______ __________________________________________________________________ Yes ___________________________________________________________________ Proposed Discovery Deadline . Estimated number of days required for trial ___________. VIII. Settlement Plan (Check one) A. B. Settlement Conference Requested after 20 . Other ADR: (Explain) IX. Do the parties request that the Court hold a Scheduling Conference? Yes No If the parties consent to the United States Magistrate Judge under Section VII and do not request a Scheduling Conference, the Court will issue a Scheduling Order based on the information contained in this Joint Status Report and no Scheduling Conference will be conducted, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. If the parties do not consent to the United States Magistrate Judge and the case is referred back by the United States District Judge an in-person Scheduling Conference WILL BE HELD unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Read and Approved by: Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant Last updated 03/26/24 3

=== Sample Scheduling Order ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA , , v. Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No. SCHEDULING ORDER Having discussed with counsel their need for adequate discovery time, the complexity of the legal issues involved herein, and their caseloads, the court enters the following Scheduling Order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Joinder of Additional Parties or Amendments to the Pleadings Expert(s) Identified & Reports Filed: See Rules 16 and 26 F.R.C.P. Plaintiff Expert Report(s) Defendant Expert Report(s) Any rebuttal Expert Report(s) Any objection to the reliability of an expert’s proposed testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be made by motion, specifically stating the basis for the objection and identifying the objectionable testimony, not later than 14 days of receipt of the written report of the expert’s proposed testimony or not later than 14 days of the expert’s deposition, if a deposition is taken, whichever is later. The failure to strictly comply with this paragraph will be deemed a waiver of any objection that could have been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Exchange and File Preliminary Witness List and Exhibit List Exchange and File Final Witness List and Exhibit List Discovery Completed All Dispositive Motions Filed Motions in Limine Filed 1 8. 9. 10. Exchange All Trial Exhibits including Demonstrative Exhibits and Requested Jury Instructions Agreed Pretrial Order Submitted (Judge Robertson’s form is available on the Court’s website at https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/content/jason-robertson- magistrate-judge) Agreed Jury Instructions and Proposed Voir Dire, Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Non-Jury), Disputed Jury Instructions (Included in Trial Brief) and Trial Briefs Filed 11. Deposition Designations. (See Local Civil Rule 30.1(c 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Counter-Designations and objections thereto (See Local Civil Rule 30.1(c Objections to Designations (Attorney Meeting to Confer to Resolve Objections Required before Filing. Filed Without Transcript) Transcripts Annotated with Objections (Submit in Hard Copy to Court) PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AT _______________. TRIAL DATE: [X] JURY at 9:30 a.m. [ ] NON-JURY at 9:30 a.m. 17. ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME. 18. Additionally Ordered ___________________________________________________. THE PARTIES SHALL FILE A JOINT STATUS DISCOVERY REPORT ON OR BEFORE _______________, WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 1. The date written discovery was issued by each party; 2. The date written discovery was responded to by each party; 3. The number of documents provided in discovery by each party; 4. The names and dates of witnesses who have been deposed; 5. The names of all witnesses that remain to be deposed prior to the discovery cut off; 6. A list of any subpoenas issued by each party and the number of documents obtained as a result of that subpoena; 2 7. Any discovery issues that should be brought to the court’s attention at this time. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT that all cases scheduled for jury trial will be set for a settlement conference before a District Judge or Magistrate Judge. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT that all parties are bound by this order, that no date will be changed except by written order of this court for good cause shown, and sanctions will be imposed for failure to comply with the directives of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of , 2024. 3

=== AI Guidelines for all Criminal and Civil Cases ===

CANDOR, ACCURACY, AND RESPONSIBILITY IN COURT FILINGS Chambers of United States Magistrate Judge Jason A. Robertson 1. Rule 11 and the Duty of Candor Govern All Filings All pleadings, motions, briefs, and other papers filed with this Court, whether submitted by counsel or by a party appearing pro se, are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and any applicable parallel provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and governing rules of professional conduct. By presenting a filing to the Court, the attorney or unrepresented party certifies that the filing is the product of reasonable inquiry under the circumstances and that: • The factual contentions have evidentiary support; • The legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for its extension, modification, or reversal; and • The authorities cited exist and are accurately represented. The obligations imposed by these rules are longstanding and apply regardless of changes in technology, research methods, or drafting tools. 2. Responsibility for Accuracy Is Absolute This Court does not regulate, restrict, or require disclosure of the tools or assistance used to prepare filings. Attorneys and unrepresented parties may employ any lawful means of drafting or research, including technological assistance. Regardless of the method of preparation, the person who signs and submits a filing bears full responsibility for its contents. The use of technology does not diminish, shift, or excuse that responsibility. Updated 01/06/2026 A reasonable inquiry requires human verification of cited authority. Reliance on automated or technological output alone is insufficient. 3. Fabricated or Nonexistent Authority The submission of nonexistent authority to the Court, including but not limited to nonexistent or hallucinated cases, fabricated quotations, invented statutes, or materially inaccurate descriptions of legal authority is impermissible in any proceeding. In civil matters, such conduct may constitute a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In criminal and other proceedings, it constitutes a breach of the duty of candor and may result in sanctions under the governing procedural and ethical rules. This principle is not new. The submission of fictional authority has never been permissible. That such authority may appear facially plausible or be technologically generated does not alter the analysis. Any citation to nonexistent authority may constitute a violation. Whether an inaccuracy is isolated or repeated bears on the appropriate remedy, not on whether a violation has occurred. 4. Application to Pro Se Litigants Pro se litigants are subject to Rule 11 and the duty of candor and are expected to conduct reasonable inquiry consistent with those standards. In assessing compliance, the Court will apply the standards governing unrepresented parties as recognized by law, while maintaining the obligation of accuracy and honesty owed to the Court. 5. Enforcement and Sanctions If the Court determines that a filing violates Rule 11, the duty of candor, or other applicable governing rules, including through the citation of fabricated or nonexistent authority, the Court may impose appropriate sanctions. Sanctions will be proportionate to the conduct at issue and tailored to the circumstances of the case. Updated 01/06/2026 Available remedies may include, but are not limited to: • Striking the filing in whole or in part; • Issuing an order to show cause; • Monetary sanctions; • Referral to appropriate disciplinary authorities; or • Any other measure necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial process. 6. No Safe Harbor Through Disclosure Disclosure of the use of any drafting assistance, research method, or technology does not excuse inaccuracies, cure violations, or mitigate sanctions. The Court evaluates filings based on their accuracy, candor, and compliance with governing rules, not on disclaimers. Closing Observation The integrity of judicial proceedings depends on the authenticity of what is filed. Technology may assist advocacy, but it cannot replace judgment, diligence, or responsibility. The signature on a filing remains a representation of truth. Updated 01/06/2026

=== Consent Form After Referral ===

AO 85 (Rev. 02/17) Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Eastern District of Oklahoma District of Plaintiff v. Defendant Civil Action No. NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Notice of a magistrate judge’s availability. A United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action (including a jury or nonjury trial) and to order the entry of a final judgment. The judgment may then be appealed directly to the United States court of appeals like any other judgment of this court. A magistrate judge may exercise this authority only if all parties voluntarily consent. You may consent to have your case referred to a magistrate judge, or you may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. The name of any party withholding consent will not be revealed to any judge who may otherwise be involved with your case. Consent to a magistrate judge’s authority. The following parties consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings. Printed names of parties and attorneys Signatures of parties or attorneys Dates IT IS ORDERED: This case is referred to a United States magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. Reference Order Date: District Judge’s signature Printed name and title Note: Return this form to the clerk of court only if you are consenting to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States magistrate judge. Do not return this form to a judge.

=== Trial and Hearing Rules ===

United States District Court Eastern District of Oklahoma United States Magistrate Judge Jason A. Robertson Chamber Rules BE YOUR BEST

=== 2026 Civil Trial Schedule ===

Judge Jason A. Robertson Wednesday, March 11, 2026 to Thursday, December 31, 2026 Last run at 3/11/2026 4:05:05 PM Tuesday, April 7, 2026 9:30 AM 6:24-cv- 00306-JAR Brown v. United States of America Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Non Jury Trial Doc: 37 Rep: R Monday, April 13, 2026 9:00 AM 6:23-cv- 00372-JAR Fields et al v. Hench's Country Liv'n Homes of Calera et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 193 Rep: R Monday, April 20, 2026 9:30 AM 6:24-cv- 00320-JAR Singleton v. Trulite Glass & Aluminum Solutions, LLC et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 129 Rep: R Monday, May 4, 2026 9:30 AM 6:23-cv- 00113-JAR Burke v. Malati Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 79 Rep: R Monday, June 1, 2026 9:30 AM 6:23-cv- 00253-JAR Pate v. Park Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 170 Rep: R Monday, June 8, 2026 9:30 AM 6:23-cv- 00409-JAR Findley v. Breeze Aviation Group, Inc. Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 51 Rep: R Monday, June 15, 2026 9:30 AM 6:24-cv- 00418-JAR Brojakowski v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 45 Rep: R Monday, July 27, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00188-JAR Edwards v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 17 Rep: R Monday, August 24, 2026 Monday, August 24, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00017-JAR McGee v. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Services et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 32 Rep: R Monday, August 31, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00184-JAR Anderson et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 42 Rep: R Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00300-JAR Monholland v. Crockett et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 21 Rep: R Wednesday, September 16, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00247-JAR Red River Pharms, LLC v. Canopius U.S. Insurance, Inc. Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 26 Rep: R Monday, September 21, 2026 Monday, September 21, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00097-JAR Wheeler et al v. Perez et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 34 Rep: R Monday, October 5, 2026 9:30 AM 6:24-cv- 00098-JAR Davis v. Truck Relocating Services, LLC et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 78 Rep: R Tuesday, October 13, 2026 9:30 AM 6:23-cv- 00131-JAR Coleman-Scruggs v. United States of America, et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 118 Rep: R Monday, October 26, 2026 9:30 AM 6:23-cv- 00082-JAR Willingham v. Clardy et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 161 Rep: R 6:25-cv- 00152-JAR Simpson v. Walmart Inc. Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 27 Rep: R Friday, October 30, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00161-JAR West Fox SWD, LLC v. Cyber Enviro-Tech, Inc. Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 37 Rep: R Monday, November 9, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00145-JAR Murphy v. Vision Bank Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 54 Rep: R Monday, November 16, 2026 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00115-JAR Ochab v. Ray et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 44 Rep: R Monday, November 30, 2026 9:30 AM 6:24-cv- 00233-JAR Kishbaugh et al v. Mirabal et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 51 Rep: R Page 5

=== 2027 Civil Trial Schedule ===

Judge Jason A. Robertson Friday, January 1, 2027 to Friday, December 31, 2027 Last run at 3/11/2026 4:06:45 PM Monday, January 4, 2027 9:30 AM 6:26-cv- 00033-JAR On-The-Hill v. Encompass Insurance Company of America Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 16 Rep: R 6:26-cv- 00033-JAR On-The-Hill v. Encompass Insurance Company of America Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 16 Rep: R Monday, January 11, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00398-JAR Reed v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 14 Rep: R Tuesday, January 19, 2027 9:30 AM 6:23-cv- 00284-JAR Lambert v. Summit Park Place Apartments, L.P. Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 47 Rep: R Tuesday, January 19, 2027 6:24-cv- 00103-JAR Lambert v. Summit Park Place Apartments, L.P. Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 69 Rep: R Monday, January 25, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00308-JAR 777 Holdings, LLC v. Fraze Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 14 Rep: R Monday, February 1, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00379-JAR Pollard v. PepsiCo Beverage Sales, LLC et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 22 Rep: R Monday, February 8, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00390-JAR Brooks v. Tractor Supply Company Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 19 Rep: R Tuesday, February 16, 2027 9:30 AM 6:22-cv- 00234-JAR Williams v. Core Civic, Inc. et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 79 Rep: R Monday, February 22, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00204-JAR Coleman v. CoreCivic, Inc. Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 19 Rep: R Monday, March 8, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00282-JAR Ayers v. State Farm Insurance Companies et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 19 Rep: R Monday, March 22, 2027 9:30 AM 6:26-cv- 00013-JAR Griffith v. Duffee et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 23 Rep: R Monday, April 5, 2027 9:30 AM 6:24-cv- 00091-JAR Diadem Enterprises, Inc. v. Dan D. Drilling Corporation et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 44 Rep: R Monday, April 12, 2027 Monday, April 12, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00107-JAR Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 29 Rep: R Monday, April 26, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00310-JAR Jenkins v. DolGenCorp, LLC Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 16 Rep: R Monday, May 3, 2027 9:30 AM 6:24-cv- 00412-JAR Midland National Life Insurance Company v. Rose Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 54 Rep: R Tuesday, May 11, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00400-JAR Potts v. DM Trucking XP et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 23 Rep: R Monday, May 24, 2027 9:30 AM 6:24-cv- 00174-JAR Doe et al v. Adair School District 25 et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 71 Rep: R Monday, June 7, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00433-JAR WaterBridge Holdings, LLC et al v. Petro Guardian, LLC Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 17 Rep: R Monday, June 21, 2027 9:30 AM 6:25-cv- 00038-JAR Powers v. United States of America et al Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 37 Rep: R Monday, June 28, 2027 9:30 AM 6:26-cv- 00046-JAR Howry et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK Jury Trial Doc: 19 Rep: R Page 5