Stephen P. Friot
How Judge Friot rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Friot
Stephen P. Friot is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Friot received a commission on November 12, 2001. Judge Friot assumed senior status on December 1, 2014.
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Friot decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dobbs, Friot found no evidence connecting the alleged misrepresentation to the decedent’s suicide.
“Plaintiff offers no evidence to support a causal connection between the claimed misrepresentation and Mr. Dobbs’s suicide.”
In Clark, Friot held that the complaint sufficiently pleaded a causal connection to support RICO standing.
“the court concludes that plaintiff has pled causation sufficiently to confer RICO standing.”
Procedural preferences
In Robey-Harcourt, after resolving the federal claim before trial, Friot declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.
“Having disposed of the federal claim prior to trial and finding no consideration requiring the court to retain and dispose of the plaintiffs state law claims, the court, in its discretion and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims.”
In Graves, Friot concluded that Mississippi law governed after considering the parties’ activities and the place of injury.
“reasoned analysis leads the court to conclude that Mississippi law controls.”
Cautions
In Dobbs, Friot treated Wyeth’s statement of undisputed facts as true when the opposing party did not controvert it.
“Wyeth's statement of undisputed facts is uncontroverted and is consequently taken as true.”
In Poindexter, Friot dismissed the RICO claim after finding that the pleading left defendants guessing about its basis.
“Defendants cannot be left guessing about the nature of the RICO claim.”
In Lee, Friot denied discovery of a minor shooting victim’s closest friends’ identities after weighing proportionality and the interests of third parties.
“the interests of third parties) compel the court to deny the motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“defendants and their officers, agents, and employees are, pursuant to Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P., ENJOINED from enforcing or relying upon the stricken laws in their licensing, rule-making, enforcement, and other official actions in the administration of the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Determine Applicable Law is GRANTED and the court determines that the substantive law of the State of Mississippi applies in this case.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ liability for copyright infringement as alleged in the Complaint. The only remaining issue is the question of to what relief plaintiffs are entitled. A ruling on that issue is DEFERRED.”
“Accordingly, the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on May 20, 2002 (docket entry no. 30) is GRANTED. The plaintiffs Application for Summary Judgment Regarding This Court’s Jurisdiction as to 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. filed on May 30, 2002 (docket entry no. 37) and the plaintiffs Application for Summary Judgment as a Result of the Defendants’ Violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq. filed on June 13, 2002 (docket entry no. 46) are DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 289] is GRANTED.”
“defendants’ ‘Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Request for Injunction for Lack of Case or Controversy Due to Failure to Demonstrate Standing,’ is DENIED.”
“After careful consideration, defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant T & W Tire, L.P. (and/or T & W Tire and Retread, Inc.) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Rule 56(f) motion is DENIED.”
“Jet Network, Inc.’s motion to expand the bankruptcy stay, joined in by Stuart L. Cauff, is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Dixie Aire Title Services, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 198), Melvyn I. Weiss’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 199), and SPW, L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 204), are DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a reply brief is DENIED.”
“The pending motions, specifically, the motion by defendant Stipe Law Firm, L.L.P. to dismiss amended complaint (docket entry no. 37), the motion of defendant G. Michael Blessington to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint (docket entry no. 38), and the motion of defendant Gene Stipe to dismiss the amended complaint (docket entry no. 39) are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 5, 2007 (doe. no. 25), is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 183 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 73 days (N = 8).
The nine valid sampled cases included civil-rights, habeas, contract, employment, and other civil matters. Their median duration was 183 days, but the narrow historical cohort is not a career-wide estimate.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Friot: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,011 | 6.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 361 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 461 | 6.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 185 | 12.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,011 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,062 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 863 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 932 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 958 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 944 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,040 | 8.5 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Friot with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Friot, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Friot's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace