Standing Order Regarding Notice of Readiness for Scheduling Conference; Standing Order Regarding Mock Juries on Cases Pending Before Judge Robert Schroeder; Exemption Order to Local Rule CV-5(a)(9) Re Courtesy Paper Copies of Electronically-Filed Documents; Standing Order on Dismissal of Actions; St

=== Standing Order Regarding Notice of Readiness for Scheduling Conference ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF READINESS FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE IN CASES PENDING BEFORE JUDGE ROBERT SCHROEDER The Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff in each case file a notice that the case is ready for scheduling conference when all of the Defendants have either answered or filed a motion to transfer or dismiss. The notice shall be filed within five days of the last remaining Defendant’s answer or motion. The notice shall include a list of any pending motions. For patent cases, the notice shall also include: (1) a list of any related cases previously filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving the same patent(s) or related patent(s); (2) the patent numbers for this case and any related case; and (3) the dates of any future Markman Hearing and/or Trial for related cases. . ____________________________________ROBERT W. SCHROEDER IIIUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 15th day of January, 2016.

=== Standing Order Regarding Mock Juries on Cases Pending Before Judge Robert Schroeder ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING MOCK JURIES ON CASES PENDING BEFORE JUDGE ROBERT SCHROEDER Where a party conducts a mock jury trial, focus group, or similar study in which participants reside in the division where the case is pending, the party IS ORDERED to apply the following procedures: The party or parties who commission the study shall retain, to the extent practicable, the name and address of each participant in the study. If the case is not disposed of by settlement or otherwise, the party or parties who commissioned the study shall advise all other parties to the case, as well as the Court, in writing, that such a study occurred. Such notice shall be provided at least 10 days before the pre-trial conference. Upon receipt of any jury list, the party or parties who commissioned the study shall immediately cross-reference the jury list with the identities of the participants and advise all other parties to the case and the Court of any prospective juror who participated in any study. Before jury selection, the party or parties who commissioned the study shall provide the names and addresses of all participants in the study to the Court in camera. . ____________________________________ROBERT W. SCHROEDER IIIUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 15th day of January, 2016.

=== Exemption Order to Local Rule CV-5(a)(9) Re Courtesy Paper Copies of Electronically-Filed Documents ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EXEMPTION ORDER TO LOCAL RULE CV-5(a)(9) RE COURTESY PAPER COPIES OF ELECTRONICALLY-FILED DOCUMENTS IN CASES PENDING BEFORE JUDGE ROBERT SCHROEDER 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 five pages in length. IT IS ORDERED that courtesy paper copies SHALL only be delivered to chambers as outlined in the Court’s sample Docket Control Order. . ____________________________________ROBERT W. SCHROEDER IIIUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 15th day of January, 2016.

=== Standing Order on Dismissal of Actions ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER ON DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS IN CASES PENDING BEFORE JUDGE ROBERT SCHROEDER A consistent and uniform manner of parties dismissing an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is of material benefit to the parties, attorneys, and the Court as it promotes the Court’s ability to monitor and manage its docket. Having an order directing the clerk to close the action when appropriate achieves this goal. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that any request for dismissal under Rule 41, whether by notice, stipulation, or motion, include a proposed order dismissing the action. The proposed order shall comply with the format described in Local Rule CV-7(a), clearly indicate whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, and, if applicable, provide that any pending requested relief is denied as moot. Further, in addition to the above proposed order of dismissal, the Court ORDERS the plaintiff to provide a separate proposed Final Judgment when the plaintiff is seeking to dismiss the last remaining defendant. The proposed Final Judgment shall comply with the format described in Local Rule CV-7(a) and reference the order(s) dismissing each defendant, such that the Final Judgment records the manner of dismissal of each defendant in the action. In consolidated cases, the proposed Final Judgment need only be filed when the final lead or member defendant is dismissed. In such instances, the proposed Final Judgment shall be filed in the lead case and clearly indicate each member defendant’s dismissal. . ____________________________________ROBERT W. SCHROEDER IIIUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 15th day of January, 2016.

=== Standing Order Regarding Proper Notification of Settlement to the Court ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING PROPER NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT TO THE COURT IN CASES PENDING BEFORE JUDGE ROBERT SCHROEDER A consistent and uniform manner of notifying the Court when a matter has been settled and resolved is of material benefit to the parties, attorneys, and the Court as it promotes the Court’s ability to monitor and manage its docket. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that promptly upon the settlement in principle of any case pending before this Court, whether such settlement is reached by formal mediation, privately between the parties or otherwise, the parties shall jointly file a motion with the Court styled as follows: Joint Motion To Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement. Such joint motion SHALL (1) affirmatively state that all matters in controversy between the parties have been settled in principle, (2) provide the general terms and amount of the settlement,1 (3) request that the Court stay for some specific and reasonable period of time, up to 30 days, the unreached deadlines contained in the Court’s Docket Control Order, or stay the entry of a Docket Control Order if one has yet to be entered, so that appropriate dismissal papers may be submitted and (4) stipulate that if any issues arise in formalizing the settlement papers, the parties agree to submit such issues to the Court for final resolution. The parties may request a stay for greater than 30 days if good cause is shown. A motion indicating that the parties are communicating about settlement but one which stops short of an express indication that the matters in controversy have, in fact, settled will not ordinarily support an order staying the existing deadlines. Other filings (such as and for example 1 A Memorandum of Understanding or email confirmation of the terms may be attached to reflect such terms. If settlement terms are deemed “Confidential,” the Notice may be filed under seal by including a Certificate of Authorization to File Under Seal referencing this Standing Order. See Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(A). only—a mere notice of settlement) shall not be adequate to comply with this Order or to secure a stay of existing deadlines. Such noncompliant filings shall not support later requests to reset missed deadlines or otherwise amend the Docket Control Order. Page 2 of 2 . ____________________________________ROBERT W. SCHROEDER IIIUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 15th day of January, 2016.

=== Standing Order Regarding Bills of Costs ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER REGARDING BILLS OF COSTS FOR CASES PENDING BEFORE JUDGE ROBERT SCHROEDER IT IS ORDERED that before any party files a Motion for Bill of Costs, they should submit their proposed bill of costs to opposing counsel for review in light of the applicable law. Further, if there are any areas of disagreement, the parties shall meet, confer, and be prepared to compromise, making every effort to submit an “agreed” bill of costs to the Court. The Court is confident that, through meeting, conferring, and compromising on the specific matters, the parties should be able to resolve the matters without having to impose upon the Court’s limited resources. However, if the parties have legitimate disputes on which they cannot agree, they shall file a motion—in accordance with Local Rule CV-54—indicating their areas of disagreement with specificity. In such case, the Court may elect to conduct a hearing, at which time lead trial counsel will be ordered to appear and explain why the disputes and differences remain unresolved. APPLICABLE LAW Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), costs are to be awarded to the prevailing party as a matter of course, unless the Court directs otherwise. However, the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1920 limit the Court’s discretion in taxing costs against the unsuccessful litigant. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441–42 (1987). Although the prevailing party is entitled to its costs, the prevailing party must still demonstrate that its costs are recoverable under Fifth Circuit precedent, and the prevailing party should not burden the Court with costs that are clearly not recoverable under the law. The statute permits the following recoverable costs: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. 28 U.S.C. § 1920. A district court is permitted to decline to award costs listed in the statute, but may not award costs omitted from the statute. Crawford, 482 U.S. at 441-42. Fees of the clerk and marshal Private process server fees are not recoverable fees of the clerk and marshal under § 1920. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 257 (5th Cir. 1997) (“As there was nothing exceptional about the parties or the nature of this case, the district court should have denied these unnecessary private service costs.”). Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts Section 1920 was amended in 2008 to authorize recovery for “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.” The trial court has great discretion to tax the costs of taking, transcribing, and reproducing depositions that are “necessarily obtained for use in the case.” Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 1991); Nissho-Iwai Co. v. Occidental Crude Sales, 729 F.2d 1530, 1553 (5th Cir. 1984). Whether a deposition or copy was necessarily obtained for use in the case is a factual determination to be made by the district court. Id. at 285-86 (citations omitted). The district court is accorded great latitude in this determination. Id. at 286. Page 2 of 5 Costs should not be disallowed merely because the deposition was not ultimately used at trial or in connection with a dispositive motion. The costs of a deposition are allowed if “there is a reasonable expectation that the deposition may be used for trial preparation.” Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 518, 536 (5th Cir. 1999). Costs associated with a deposition taken primarily for discovery or investigative purposes are not recoverable. Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 285. The 2008 amendment to this provision recognizes that costs may be taxed for “electronically recorded transcripts.” Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit has now implicitly recognized that costs may be allowed for video tapes of depositions. See also SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., NO: 2:07-CV-497, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112493, at *9-10 (E.D. Tex. September 29, 2011) (taxing videotape deposition costs in light of the 2008 amendment). Recoverable costs related to depositions typically include, but are not limited to: reporter’s appearance fees, transcript costs, and videographer fees. However, incidental costs associated with depositions, such as the cost of expedited delivery charges, ASCII disks, and parking, are generally not recoverable. Harris Corp. v. Sanyo No. Am. Corp., No. 3–98–CV–2712, 2002 WL 356755, at *3 (N.D. Tex. March 4, 2002); Canion v. United States, No. EP-03-CA-0347-FM, 2005 WL 2216881 at *3 (W.D. Tex. 2005). Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies Costs of photocopies necessarily obtained for use in the litigation are recoverable upon proof of necessity. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4); Holmes v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 11 F.3d 63, 64 (5th Cir. 1994). The party seeking costs need not “identify every xerox copy made for use in the course of legal proceedings.” Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 286. However, it must demonstrate some connection between the costs incurred and the litigation. Id. The Court first determines whether Page 3 of 5 the charges sought are reasonable in light of the litigation. Reasonable charges shall be allowed; however, non-specific copying and exemplification charges may be further reduced.1 Charges for multiple copies of documents, attorney correspondence, and other such items are not recoverable. Id. Electronic discovery costs are generally not allowed, including costs for document collection, document processing, and document hosting. Document scanning costs are allowed to the extent that they are reasonable and necessary for litigation. Electronic document conversion costs are allowed to the extent that they are necessary for use in the case. The Court’s sample ESI Order designates TIFF as the default format for document production. Parties that agree to such an arrangement shall have agreed that the costs of converting native documents to TIFF are taxable under Rule 54. However, in the event that the parties agree that native document production is acceptable (i.e., no conversion is necessary), the costs associated with converting native documents to TIFF (or any other format) shall not be recoverable. See Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 6:09-cv-446, Docket No. 1416 at 5–6 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2012). Miscellaneous fees Miscellaneous expenses such as postage, facsimiles, electronic legal research, and travel expenses are not recoverable under § 1920. See Home Depot U.S.A. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 4:02- CV-95, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5492, at *5 (E.D. Tex. 2003) (Davis, J.); see also Compton v. Taylor, No. H-05-4116, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43402 at *8 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Likewise, reimbursement for attorney travel and meals is not allowed. See Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 5 F.3d 877, 892 (5th Cir. 1993). In addition, the Fifth Circuit has expressly held that mediation 1 For instance, a charge labeled “copying” is non-specific, while a charge labeled “copying Project X source code” is considered specific. Page 4 of 5 fees are not recoverable. Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 530 (5th Cir. 2001). Page 5 of 5 . ____________________________________ROBERT W. SCHROEDER IIIUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED this 15th day of January, 2016.

=== Order Vacating Standing Order 2021-5 ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ORDER VACATING STANDING ORDER Divisional Standing Order No. 2021-5 is hereby VACATED. FOR THE COURT this 29th day of December, 2022. ______________________________ Robert W. Schroeder III United States District Judge

=== Referral Order RS-72-4 Civil Actions Assigned to Judge Robert W. Schroeder III ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS REFERRAL ORDER RS-72-4 CIVIL ACTIONS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, it is ORDERED: CASES REFERRED 1. Forty (40) percent of civil actions (excluding Social Security cases, Pro Se Non- Prisoner/Habeas cases, and Mortgage cases) filed in the Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of Texas after the date of this Order and assigned to the undersigned are hereby REFERRED to U.S. Magistrate Judge James Boone Baxter for all pretrial proceedings. All Social Security cases, Pro Se Non-Prisoner/Habeas cases, and Mortgage cases filed in the Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of Texas after the date of this Order and assigned to the undersigned are hereby REFERRED to Judge Baxter for all pretrial proceedings. 2. All Social Security cases, Pro Se Non-Prisoner/Habeas cases, and Mortgage cases filed in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas after the date of this Order and assigned to the undersigned are hereby REFERRED to U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for all pretrial proceedings. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS 3. The magistrate judges listed above shall handle all pretrial proceedings in cases referred under paragraphs 1 and 2. This shall include: a. hearing and determining all matters within the magistrate judge’s dispositive jurisdiction; and b. proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) concerning matters excepted from the magistrate judge’s dispositive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). CONSENT 4. Upon receipt of signed consent forms by all parties, the case may be reassigned to a magistrate judge, who shall conduct all proceedings, including jury and non-jury trials, and order the entry of judgment. REFERRAL PROCEDURE 5. The Clerk of Court shall administer the random referrals and case assignments to the magistrate judges according to procedures devised by the Clerk and approved in advance by the undersigned. 6. In order to protect the integrity of the random case assignment procedure, the Clerk shall take steps to ensure that every case referral shall be free from actual or potential influence or manipulation by any litigant, counsel, member of the public or court staff member. 7. In the event of recusal or other disqualification of the magistrate judge in a case referred and assigned under this Order, the case shall return automatically to the docket of the undersigned, subject to further orders of the Court. 8. Case referrals pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, case reassignments under paragraph 4, and withdrawals of referrals under paragraph 7 shall be effected automatically under this Order. Absent special circumstances, case-specific orders of reference, reassignment, and withdrawal shall not be entered. 9. This Order does not affect General Orders 05-4, 05-5, 05-6, 05-7 and 05-10 or other established procedures for referral to magistrate judges of special category cases (e.g., preliminary motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel in Title VII cases, prisoner cases, matters on the miscellaneous docket, etc.). 10. 11. This Order does not affect any referrals made prior to the entry of this Order. Nothing herein shall preclude reference of additional matters to the magistrate judges or the withdrawal of referrals in cases subject to this Order whenever appropriate. This referral order supersedes its predecessor, Amended Referral Order RS-72-3. So ORDERED and effective as of the 28th day of April, 2026. _________________________________ ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2