; ; ;

=== Proposed-scheduling-order-revised-4.15.25-removing-single-judge-adding-hearings.pdf ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ____________________, Plaintiff(s), v. ____________________, Defendant(s). § § § § § § § § § § 1:__-CV-____-RP AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the following Agreed Scheduling Order is issued by the Court: 1. A report on alternative dispute resolution in compliance with Local Rule CV-88 shall be filed on or before _________________________. 2. The parties asserting claims for relief shall submit a written offer of settlement to opposing parties on or before _________________________, and each opposing party shall respond, in writing, on or before _________________________. All offers of settlement are to be private, not filed. The parties are ordered to retain the written offers of settlement and responses so the Court may use them in assessing attorney’s fees and costs at the conclusion of the trial. 3. Each party shall complete and file the attached “Notice Concerning Reference to United States Magistrate Judge” on or before _________________________. 4. The parties shall file all motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join additional parties on or before _________________________. 5. All parties asserting claims for relief shall file their designation of testifying experts and serve on all parties, but not file, the materials required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) on or before ________________________. Parties resisting claims for relief shall file their designation of testifying experts and serve on all parties, but not file, the materials required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) on or before ________________________. All parties shall file all designations of rebuttal experts and serve on all parties the material required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) for such rebuttal experts, to the extent not already served, 15 days from the receipt of the report of the opposing expert. 6. An 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, within 11 days from the receipt of the written report of the expert’s proposed testimony, or within 11 days from the completion of the expert’s deposition, if a deposition is taken, whichever is later. 7. 8. The parties shall complete all discovery on or before ________________________. All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before ________________________ and shall be limited to 20 pages. Responses shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 14 days after the service of the motion and shall be limited to 20 pages. Any replies shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 7 days after the service of the response and shall be limited to 10 pages, but the Court need not wait for the reply before ruling on the motion. 9. The Court will set this case for final pretrial conference at a later time. The final pretrial conference shall be attended by at least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of the parties and by any unrepresented parties. The parties should consult Local Rule CV-16(e) regarding matters to be filed in advance of the final pretrial conference. The parties shall not complete the following paragraph. It will be completed by the Court at the initial pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court. 10. This case is set for ______________ trial commencing at 9:00 a.m. on ___________________________________, 20________. Jury selection may be conducted by a Magistrate Judge and may occur the Friday before the case is set for trial. Because criminal and civil cases are often set for the same trial week, the Court may need to reschedule your trial shortly before the trial date. If the parties resolve their dispute after 5:00 p.m. the day before jury selection or resolve their dispute earlier but fail to timely notify the Court, the parties may be assessed up to $5,000 for the lost opportunity to schedule other matters and to cover court costs like summoning the jury panel and paying the fees of the jury panel. The parties may modify the deadlines in this order by agreement, with the exception of the dispositive motions deadline, hearing dates, and trial date. Those dates are firm. The Court may impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) if the parties do not make timely submissions under this order. For cases brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the parties may instead follow the standard disclosure process and will have an initial pretrial conference only by request. SIGNED on _________________________________, 20_______. __________________________________ ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ____________________, Plaintiff(s), v. ____________________, Defendant(s). § § § § § § § § § § 1:__-CV-____-RP NOTICE CONCERNING REFERENCE TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the following party ________________________________________________________________ through counsel _______________________________________________________________ ___ consents to having a United States Magistrate Judge preside over the trial in this case. ___ declines to consent to trial before a United States Magistrate Judge. Respectfully submitted, __________________________________ Attorney for: __________________________________

=== standing-order-patent-cases-clean-version.pdf ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE: PATENT, TRADEMARK, AND COPYRIGHT CASES § § § § STANDING ORDER REGARDING PATENT, TRADEMARK, AND COPYRIGHT CASES This Order governs the commencement of patent, trademark, and copyright cases in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. It is ORDERED, at the commencement of the action, counsel filing such an action shall be responsible for the timely preparation and electronic filing of the Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark, AO Form 120, using the Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form event or Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action or Appeal Regarding a Copyright, AO Form 121, using the Notice of Copyright Form, AO Form 121, through this Court’s CM/ECF system. This standing order becomes effective for all patent, trademark, and copyright cases filed in the Austin Division on or after November 13, 2023. SIGNED on November 6, 2023. ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

=== 11.24.25-Docket-Management-Order-revised-to-remove-DII.pdf ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE: COURT DOCKET MANAGEMENT § § § FOR AUSTIN DIVISION ORDER In accordance with the authority vested in the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 1 of the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrates, Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, IT IS ORDERED that, for cases assigned to Judge Pitman, the following matters shall be REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for the Austin Division, allocated pursuant to the Clerk of the Court’s standard procedure, for the types of actions listed below: 1. All cases brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254 (excluding cases in which a sentence of death was imposed), and 2255 (excluding cases in which a sentence of death was imposed), cases brought by federal prisoners and detainees challenging conditions of confinement, cases brought by prisoners pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and cases seeking judicial review of social security decisions shall be assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge for the Austin Division for disposition of all non-dispositive pretrial matters as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and for findings and recommendations on all case- dispositive motions as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 2. Any case in which application to proceed in forma pauperis has been made, other than a case described in paragraph (1) above, shall be referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for the Austin Division for disposition of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, disposition of any motion for appointment of counsel, and for a prompt recommendation as to whether the case should be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Upon completion of the above tasks, the Magistrate Judge shall return the case to the district court for further proceedings. Additionally, for cases assigned to Judge Pitman, IT IS ORDERED that holding the initial pretrial conference, and any subsequent conferences as necessary, in a civil or miscellaneous matter 1 is REFERRED to the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, to United States Magistrate Judge Derek Gilliland for Waco patent cases assigned to Judge Pitman, or as otherwise directed by the undersigned. To that end, a United States Magistrate Judge may schedule initial pretrial conferences, enter orders regarding proposed scheduling orders, and enter other nondispositive or case management orders to effectuate initial pretrial conferences in civil cases and miscellaneous matters. The referral ends after the scheduling order has been entered. This Order supersedes all prior Orders of this Court regarding the above-referenced matters for the Austin Division. SIGNED on November 24, 2025. _____________________________________ ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

=== Standing-Order-on-Review-of-1326-Release-Orders-under-18-USC-3145.pdf ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE: REVIEW OF RELEASE ORDERS IN 8 U.S.C. § 1326 CASES § § § STANDING ORDER REGARDING THIS COURT’S REVIEW OF RELEASE ORDERS UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a) FOR DEFENDANTS CHARGED UNDER 8 U.S.C. § 1326 This Order governs the procedure for the United States to move for this Court’s review, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), of an order of a United States Magistrate Judge ordering the release of a defendant charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, when the magistrate judge has granted a stay of the defendant’s release. In order to abide by the statutory requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a) for the Court to “determine[] promptly” motions filed under this statute, IT IS ORDERED that, upon the United States’s oral motion for the magistrate judge to stay a defendant’s release, the United States shall simultaneously orally move for this Court to review the magistrate judge’s release order. An oral motion of this type will be considered as properly “fil[ing]” the motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3145. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon the United States’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), the Clerk of Court shall—on that same day—notify the chambers of this Court of the motion. SIGNED on October 31, 2025. _____________________________________ ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE