Standing Order Assigning Sherman Social Security Appeal Cases to a Magistrate Judge; Standing Order Assigning Sherman Prisoner Civil Rights Cases to a Magistrate Judge; Standing Order Referring ALM and SDJ's Non-Patent Non-Habeas and Non-Pro Se Cases to a Magistrate Judge; Standing Order on Motions

=== Standing Order Assigning Sherman Social Security Appeal Cases to a Magistrate Judge ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER ASSIGNING SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL CASES FILED IN THE SHERMAN DIVISION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Effective February 1, 2025, and notwithstanding other case assignment orders of this Court, the Clerk will randomly assign, at the time of filing, each appeal from the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to § 405(g) of the Social Security Act filed in the Sherman Division to a magistrate judge in the Sherman Division to serve as presiding judge and immediately thereafter send the parties a form to consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. The assigned magistrate judge may also separately invite the parties to consent. If all parties consent, the case will remain assigned to the magistrate judge for all purposes, including the entry of final judgment under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. If the parties do not consent, the Clerk will randomly reassign the case to a district judge in the Sherman Division and automatically refer the case to the previously presiding magistrate judge for decisions on non-dispositive matters and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for the disposition of the case. This order does not apply to any case that was filed before February 1, 2025. SO ORDERED and Effective as of the 1st day of February, 2025. AMOS L. MAZZANT, III United States District Judge SEAN D. JORDAN United States District Judge

=== Standing Order Assigning Sherman Prisoner Civil Rights Cases to a Magistrate Judge ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER ASSIGNING PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS CASES FILED IN THE SHERMAN DIVISION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Effective February 1, 2025, and notwithstanding other case assignment orders of this Court, the Clerk will randomly assign, at the time of filing, each prisoner civil rights case filed in the Sherman Division to a magistrate judge in the Sherman Division to serve as presiding judge and send each party a form to consent to proceed before the magistrate judge upon the party’s appearance in the case. The assigned magistrate judge may also separately invite party consent. If the plaintiff consents to proceed before the magistrate judge, subject to the consent of each defendant, the magistrate judge is designated to exercise jurisdiction to conduct any and all proceedings as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to conduct the trial of the case, and to order the entry of judgment in the case pursuant to Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1995). If the parties do not consent, the Clerk will randomly reassign the case to a district judge in the Sherman Division and automatically refer the case to the previously presiding magistrate judge for decisions on non-dispositive matters and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for the disposition of the case. This order does not apply to any case that was filed before February 1, 2025. SO ORDERED and Effective as of the 1st day of February, 2025. AMOS L. MAZZANT, III United States District Judge SEAN D. JORDAN United States District Judge

=== Standing Order Referring ALM and SDJ's Non-Patent Non-Habeas and Non-Pro Se Cases to a Magistrate Judge ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REFERRING A PERCENTAGE OF NON-PATENT CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO A SHERMAN DIVISION DISTRICT JUDGE TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule CV-72, the Clerk will randomly refer for all pretrial proceedings, at the time of filing or reassignment, 25% of the non-patent civil cases assigned to the undersigned that are not already subject to automatic referral by General Orders 05-07 or 05-10. Each Sherman Division magistrate judge shall receive half of such referrals from each of the undersigned. SO ORDERED and Effective as of the 1st day of July, 2025. AMOS L. MAZZANT, III Chief United States District Judge SEAN D. JORDAN United States District Judge

=== Standing Order on Motions to Seal in Civil Cases ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION JUDGE SEAN D. JORDAN STANDING ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL IN CIVIL CASES This Order is intended to ensure that the Court complies with governing law on the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings and records, and the requirements for permitting any document submitted to the Court to be filed or kept under seal. Section A summarizes the legal standard that applies to motions to seal documents submitted to the Court. Parties should be familiar with this standard before seeking leave to file materials under seal. Section B sets out the specific procedures that parties must follow when seeking leave to file materials under seal in civil cases before this Court, and supplements Local Rule 5(a)(7). This Order applies only to the filing of documents under seal in civil cases before Judge Sean D. Jordan. A. Legal Standard “Providing public access to judicial records is the duty and responsibility of the Judicial Branch.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Such records “belong to the American people; they are public, not private, documents.” Id. With these principles in mind, the Fifth Circuit has instructed courts to be “ungenerous with their discretion to seal judicial records.” Id. at 418; see also June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519–20 (5th Cir. 2022) (explaining that the Fifth Circuit “heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial record”). When 1 presented with a motion to seal, courts must consider and protect the public’s “common law right to inspect and copy judicial records.” Bradley on behalf of AJW v. Ackal, 954 F.3d 216, 224 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). “This right promotes the trustworthiness of the judicial process, curbs judicial abuses, and provides the public with a better understanding of the judicial process, including its fairness, and serves as a check on the integrity of the system.” Id. (cleaned up). The public’s common-law right is not absolute, however, and the presumption of public access can be rebutted by “compelling countervailing interests favoring nondisclosure.” Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 421. Thus, courts must “undertake a case- by-case, document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” Id. at 419 (cleaned up); see also DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[The Federal Circuit] appl[ies] regional circuit law in determining the applicable [sealing] standard,” which is “substantially the same across circuits: the parties seeking confidentiality must present a strong justification to overcome the presumption of public access.”). This balancing should include a “consideration of less drastic alternatives” to sealing entire documents. Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 420. For example, where the movant’s interests can be protected by redacting portions of a document, rather than sealing the entire document, courts generally favor redaction as a less drastic alternative. See, e.g., Mach Flynt Inc. v. Veritiv Operating Co., No. 2:24-CV-01444, 2025 WL 56333, at *2 (W.D. La. Jan. 9, 2 2025) (refusing to seal an entire contract where confidential pricing information appeared only in an appendix to the contract). Litigants should understand that the standard for filing material under seal in the judicial record is not the same as the standard for designating that material as “confidential” under a protective order. “That a document qualifies for a protective order under Rule 26(c) for discovery says nothing about whether it should be sealed once it is placed in the judicial record.” June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521 (emphasis in original). The Fifth Circuit has admonished that “courts are duty-bound to protect public access to judicial proceedings and records,” a duty that is all too “easy to overlook” in the context of stipulated sealings, and that it is inappropriate to “presume[e] that whatever satisfies the lenient protective-order standard will necessarily satisfy the stringent sealing-order standard.” Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 417–18. B. Procedures A movant seeking leave to file materials under seal must file three documents, separately and in the following order: 1. Motion to seal (filed under seal). The motion must address the legal standard governing motions to seal, as summarized in Section A above. That is to say, it must include a document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure. In so doing, the motion should list each separate proposed redaction—i.e., each discrete span of text or other material that the movant seeks to redact—and demonstrate that redaction of such material is authorized under controlling precedent. If the party seeks to seal an entire document, it must explain why redacting portions of that document would not suffice to protect its interests. 3 The seal motion need not attach a proposed order. However, if a proposed order is attached, it should reference each separate proposed redaction on the list by number. 2. 3. Sealed, unredacted version of the document(s) sought to be sealed. At the time the seal motion is filed, the movant should separately file, under seal, an unredacted version of the document(s) sought to be sealed. Public (non-sealed), redacted copy of the document(s) sought to be sealed. At the time the seal motion is filed, the movant should also separately file a redacted version of the document(s) sought to be sealed. Only that material alleged to be sealable should be redacted. Each redaction must correspond to the listed items in the seal motion. In the unusual circumstance that a party seeks to seal an entire document, the party need not file the third document (a public, redacted copy). In all other circumstances, failure to file the third document will result in the first two documents being stricken. This Order supersedes Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(E) for the filing of any sealed document in this Court. A movant’s failure to address and comply with the legal standard governing motions to seal, as summarized in Section A above, will result in the motion to seal being denied and the sealed document(s) being stricken. 4

=== Criminal Referral Order Judge Jordan ===

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION REFERRAL ORDER RE: CRIMINAL ACTIONS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE SEAN D. JORDAN ___________________________________________ In accordance with the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, it is ORDERED: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), all pretrial motions in Sherman Division criminal cases assigned to United States District Judge Sean D. Jordan, with the exception of motions to suppress evidence, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to continue, to sever, and to transfer venue, are hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett or United States Magistrate Judge Bill Davis, as randomly assigned by the Clerk of Court, for consideration and hearing as deemed necessary, and a determination.