Timothy D. DeGiusti
How Judge DeGiusti rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge DeGiusti
Timothy D. DeGiusti is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge DeGiusti received a commission on August 9, 2007.
Judge DeGiusti's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge DeGiusti, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Court Call Procedures ↗
- Fast Track Procedures ↗
- General Rules for Trial of Cases before Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti ↗
Key rules
Motions
The optional fast-track procedure requires agreement of all parties and court approval.
“With approval of the Court and agreement of all parties, civil cases may be made subject to the ‘fast track’ procedure set forth herein.”
Discovery
In a fast-track case, each party is limited to 25 deposition hours unless the parties agree otherwise and the court approves.
“No more than 25 hours of depositions shall be permitted by any party.”
Conferences
Initial status conferences may be attended by telephone by eligible out-of-county counsel and pro se litigants.
“Telephonic appearances are allowed for initial status conferences before Judge DeGiusti for parties with counsel of record whose office is located outside of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and pro se litigants who reside outside of Oklahoma County.”
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 DeGiusti decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Maldonado Castillo v. Prater, DeGiusti overruled the plaintiff’s blanket objection to a magistrate judge’s report because it did not identify the information allegedly ignored or provide supporting argument. He adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
“this type of blanket objection without argument or authorities, is not sufficient to preserve an issue for further review.”
In a jail-conditions summary-judgment record, testimony about longstanding understaffing and underfunding was enough to leave the existence of a municipal policy or custom for a jury.
“a jury could conclude that the Board maintained an official policy or custom of understaffing and underfunding the Jail.”
In Segrest v. State Farm, DeGiusti enforced the policy’s suit deadline against the contract claim but left the bad-faith claim for trial because the insurer’s investigation remained factually disputed.
“genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on the issue of bad faith.”
Procedural preferences
In Watkins v. Property Management Services, DeGiusti denied a motion to compel without prejudice because the defendant had not met the local rule’s conference requirement. He stated that, before a discovery hearing, his customary practice was to require lead counsel to meet face to face in chambers.
“it is this Court’s customary practice to require a face-to-face meeting between lead counsel for the parties in chambers before conducting a hearing on a discovery motion.”
In J&J Hudson, LLC v. Simmons Bank, DeGiusti declined to confirm an arbitration award while a consolidated action and related arbitration issues remained unresolved. He denied the confirmation motion without prejudice to a later request, citing the unique circumstances of that case.
“For these reasons, and given the unique circumstances of this case, the Court declines to confirm and enter judgment on the arbitration at this time.”
Cautions
In Aceco Valves v. Neal, DeGiusti denied reconsideration of a partial-summary-judgment ruling. He rejected attempts to repeat earlier arguments and treated a new point raised only in the reply as waived.
“A motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress up arguments that previously failed.”
In Maldonado Castillo v. Prater, DeGiusti rejected a pro se plaintiff’s objection that the magistrate judge had not construed his complaint liberally. He found that the magistrate judge applied the proper standard and explained that liberal construction did not require the court to create arguments for the plaintiff.
“courts are not to serve as a pro se plaintiff's advocate and are not bound to create arguments for a plaintiff merely because he is pro se.”
In Chenoweth-Brewer’s payroll-tax case, DeGiusti denied the taxpayer’s summary-judgment motion because a material fact dispute remained over whether she acted willfully.
“The Court agrees that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff acted willfully.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Stewart's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED; ... Defendant OCCJA's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 39] is GRANTED; Defendant Turn Key's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 41] is GRANTED ... Based on these rulings, Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant CJ's Bail Bonds' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is GRANTED;”
“Defendant Stewart's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. No. 32] is DENIED;”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 18] is GRANTED. All Plaintiff's motions are moot and, therefore, DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 62] is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider [Doc. No. 92] is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED without prejudice to a future submission upon compliance with LCvR37.1.”
“Defendant Century Trucking, Inc.'s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED.”
“the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to enjoin the Defendants as requested and, alternatively, Plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary factors supporting an injunction, and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 26].”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 23] in its entirety and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. No. 20].”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court [Doc. No. 16] is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma.”
“Defendant's Replacement Motion for Partial Summary Judgment & Memorandum in Support of Its Motion [Doc. No. 32] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as fully set forth herein.”
“the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Greg Williams and Kevin Wagner [Doc. No. 60] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's action against these defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Sue Ann Arnall, Joe Allbaugh, Francie Ekwerekwu, Todd Lamb, Jim Couch, Ben Brown, and M.T. Berry [Doc. No. 59] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's action against these defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 94 days (N = 17).
The sample mixes civil and criminal matters, with a substantial pro se prisoner and habeas component frequently referred to magistrate judges, alongside counseled commercial, insurance, and contract litigation.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 6 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 13 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 6 |
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 United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, not for Judge DeGiusti: 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 DeGiusti with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge DeGiusti, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge DeGiusti's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace