Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys; Standing Order Regarding Readiness for Scheduling Conference in Patent Cases; Standing Order Regarding Paper Copies of Lengthy Documents; Beaumont Divisional Standing Order 2022-6; Lufkin Division Standing Order 2022-3; Final Join

=== Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys ===

STANDING ORDER REGARDING COURTROOM OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEWER ATTORNEYS The Court is cognizant of a growing trend in which fewer cases go to trial, and in which there are generally fewer opportunities in court for speaking or “stand-up” engagements. This is especially true for newer attorneys, that is, attorneys practicing for less than seven years (“Newer Attorney(s)”). Opportunities for Newer Attorneys to speak in federal court are increasingly rare. Accordingly, the Court strongly encourages litigants to be mindful of opportunities for Newer Attorneys to conduct oral argument before the Court, particularly for motions where the newer attorney drafted or contributed significantly to the underlying motion or response. The Court believes that it is everyone’s responsibility to assist in providing substantive experience to our next generation of lawyers and that the benefits of doing so will accrue to Newer Attorneys, to clients, and to the profession generally. Therefore, the Court strongly encourages all parties practicing before it to keep this goal in mind. Recognizing the importance of the development of future generations of practitioners through courtroom opportunities, the Court adopts the following procedures regarding oral argument as to pending motions: (1) If a party is interested in having a Newer Attorney argue a motion, after the motion is ripe, the party should contact chambers to request oral argument and inform chambers that a Newer Attorney will argue the motion or a portion of the motion. (2) If such a request is made, the Court will: A. Grant the request for oral argument on the motion, if it is at all practicable to do so, even if the Court would not ordinarily permit oral argument. In those instances where the Court is inclined to rule on the papers, a representation that the argument would be handled by a Newer Attorney will weigh in favor of holding a hearing. B. Strongly consider allocating additional time for oral argument beyond what the Court may otherwise have allocated, were a Newer Attorney not arguing the motion. C. Permit other, more experienced counsel of record to speak on the motion as well, where appropriate, during oral argument. D. Notify opposing counsel if such a request is granted and request opposing counsel reciprocate in permitting a Newer Attorney to make its argument on the motion. All attorneys, including Newer Attorneys, will be held to the highest professional standards. Relatedly, all attorneys appearing in court are expected to be adequately prepared and thoroughly familiar with the factual record and the applicable law, and to have a degree of authority commensurate with the proceeding. The Court also recognizes that there may be many different circumstances in which it is not appropriate for a Newer Attorney to argue a motion. Thus, the Court emphasizes that it draws no inference from a party’s decision not to have a Newer Attorney argue any particular motion before the Court. Additionally, the Court will draw no inference about the importance of a particular motion, or the merits of a party’s argument regarding the motion, from the party’s decision to have (or not to have) a Newer Attorney argue the motion. ____________________________ Michael J. TruncaleUnited States District JudgeSIGNED this 16th day of August, 2019.

=== Standing Order Regarding Readiness for Scheduling Conference in Patent Cases ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION STANDING ORDER REGARDING READINESS FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE IN PATENT CASES In all patent cases pending before the undersigned, when all defendants have responded to the initial pleadings (whether by Answer or Motion), the plaintiff shall inform the Court that the case is ready for an initial Case Management Conference by submitting a Notice that shall also identify (1) any pending motions, and (2) any related cases in this District. If the plaintiff does not submit such Notice within a reasonable time, any defendant is free to submit the Notice. ____________________________ Michael J. TruncaleUnited States District JudgeSIGNED this 9th day of December, 2019.

=== Standing Order Regarding Paper Copies of Lengthy Documents ===

STANDING ORDER REGARDING PAPER COPIES OF LENGTHY DOCUMENTS Local Civil Rule 5(a)(9) discusses “Paper Copies of Lengthy Documents.” Under the rule, Parties must send paper copies of an electronically filed document to chambers if the document “exceeds ten pages in length, including attachments[.]” This rule applies “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge[.]” In other words, judges can relieve Parties of their Rule 5(a)(9) obligations by Standing Order. The Court finds it prudent to do so. In our ever-changing times, electronic platforms are the name of the game. Almost all Parties file their pleadings, motions, and other documents via this District’s Electronic Filing System. And Court staff primarily rely on that very same system in performing their daily duties. Accordingly, the Court finds that opting out of Local Civil Rule 5(a)(9) would conserve resources for both the Parties and the Court. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Parties are exempt from complying with Local Rule CV- 5(a)(9), which requires the filing party to provide the presiding judge with paper copies of all electronically filed documents over ten pages in length. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that courtesy paper copies shall only be provided to chambers when specifically requested by the undersigned. ____________________________ Michael J. TruncaleUnited States District JudgeSIGNED this 11th day of August, 2025.

=== Beaumont Divisional Standing Order 2022-6 ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION DIVISIONAL STANDING ORDER NO. 2022-6 REGARDING COURTHOUSE SECURITY POLICIES In addition to General Order 18-6, the following security policies are hereby adopted for the Jack Brooks United States Courthouse in Beaumont, Texas (the Courthouse): Prohibited Items Visitors and guests to the Courthouse are not per itted to bring any of the following items into the Courthouse without prior approval from a District or Magistrate Judge: (a) Liquids, aerosols, or gels. This includes bottles of water. (b) Laser Lights / Pointers. (c) Cigarette Lighters. (d) Vape pens. Court employees and other building tenants are exempt from this policy. Electronic Communication Devices With respect to electronic communication devices, in addition to the restrictions provided in General Order 18-6, impaneled petit and grand jurors may check such devices into the Clerk s Office and access them during breaks in the judicial proceedings. So ORDERED and SIGNED, April , 2022. Marcia A. Crone U.S. District Judge Michael J. Trunqznt U.S. District Judge Thad Heartfield U.S. District Judge This order is available on the Court s Website - http://www.txed.uscourts.gov. 11

=== Lufkin Division Standing Order 2022-3 ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION DIVISIONAL STANDING ORDER NO. 2022-3 REGARDING COURTHOUSE SECURITY POLICIES In addition to General Order 18-6, the following security policies are hereby adopted for the Ward R. Burke United States Courthouse in Lufkin, Texas (the Courthouse): Prohibited Items Visitors and guests to the Courthouse are not permitted to bring any of the following items into the Courthouse without prior approval from a District or Magistrate Judge: (a) Liquids, aerosols, or gels. This includes bottles of water. (b) Laser Lights / Pointers. (c) Cigarette Lighters. (d) Vape pens. Court employees and other building tenants are exempt from this policy. Electronic Communication Devices With respect to electronic communication devices, in addition to the restrictions provided in General Order 18-6, i paneled jurors may check such devices into the Clerk s Office and access them during breaks in the judicial proceedings. So ORDERED and SIGNED, April , 2022. Marcia A. Crone U.S. District Judge U.S. District Judge U.S. District J oge This order is available on the Court s Website - http://www.txed.uscourts. ov. 11

=== Final Joint Pre-trial Order ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DIVISION CASE NUMBER: JUDGE MICHAEL TRUNCALE § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) JOINT FINAL PRE-TRIAL ORDER This cause came before the Court at a pre-trial management conference held on , 20 , pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Plaintiff(s): Defendant(s): B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is (not) disputed. (e.g., “Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship under Title 28 U.S.C. §1332;” “Jurisdiction in this case is based on Title 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that the plaintiff brings this action under Title 26 U.S.C. § 216, the Fair Labor Standards Act.”) C. NATURE OF ACTION (e.g., “This is an employment discrimination case wherein the plaintiff seeks damages for lost wages after he was fired from his job. The plaintiff contends his termination was based on his race, and the defendant contends that it was based on poor job performance.) D. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES The contentions of each party on those claims and issues approved for trial at the management conference shall be succinctly stated in a form suitable to be read to the jury. 1 E. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS F. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW G. LIST OF WITNESSES Each party shall set forth a separate list of witnesses who (1) will be called to testify at trial; (2) may be called to testify at trial, and (3) may be presented by deposition testimony at trial. Those portions of the depositions that may be offered into evidence at trial shall be listed by page and line number. H. LIST OF EXHIBITS Counsel should fill out and submit to the Court an exhibit list containing the information in the form available on the Court’s website, located at www.txed.ucourts.gov. I. PENDING MOTIONS J. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL The probable length of trial is day(s). K. LIMITATIONS The parties shall set forth any limitations agreed upon or ordered by the Court at or after the management conference, such as a time limit on the length of trial, limitations on the number of experts a party may call, limitations on the length of video depositions, the use of deposition summaries, etc. L. CERTIFICATIONS The undersigned counsel for each of the parties in this action do hereby certify and acknowledge the following: a. Full and complete disclosure has been made in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s orders; b. Discovery limitations set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Court’s orders have been complied with; c. Each exhibit in the List of Exhibits herein: i. is in existence; ii. is numbered; and iii. has been disclosed and shown to opposing counsel. Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s): 2 Attorney(s) for Defendant(s): (Note: An attorney of record may sign and certify this order on behalf of opposing counsel “with permission.”) This Joint Pre-Trial Order is hereby approved this day of [month], [year]. United States District Judge (Note: Where additional parties are joined or intervene pursuant to Rules 14, 19 and 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the style of the case and the various sections of the pre -trial order should be modified to reflect the additional parties and information pertaining to them.) 3