Robert William Schroeder III
How Judge Schroeder rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schroeder
Robert William Schroeder, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Schroeder received a commission on December 19, 2014.
Judge Schroeder's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Schroeder, 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.
- Standing Order Regarding Notice of Readiness for Scheduling Conference ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Meet and Confer Obligations Relating to Discovery Disputes ↗
- 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 ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Proper Notification of Settlement to the Court ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Bills of Costs ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Protection of Proprietary and/or Confidential Information to Be Presented to the Court During Motion an ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Patent E-Discovery Order ↗
- Track B Initial Patent Case Management Order ↗
- Sample Markman Track B Schedule ↗
- Discovery Order ↗
- Docket Control Order ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Discovery Order ↗
- Docket Control Order ↗
- Sample Trial Witness list ↗
- Sample Exhibit List ↗
- Sample Joint Pre-Trial Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Send Schroeder courtesy paper copies only as directed by his sample docket control order.
“courtesy paper copies SHALL only be delivered to chambers as outlined in the Court’s sample Docket Control Order.”
Filing
Include a proposed dismissal order with every Rule 41 dismissal request, including a notice or stipulation.
“any request for dismissal under Rule 41, whether by notice, stipulation, or motion, include a proposed order dismissing the action.”
Filing
After a settlement in principle, jointly file a motion to stay all deadlines and notice of settlement.
“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.”
Discovery
Within 72 hours after a discovery motion is set for hearing, lead and local counsel must confer in person or by phone.
“Within 72 hours of the Court setting any discovery motion for a hearing, each party’s lead attorney (see Local Rule CV-11(a)) and local counsel shall meet and confer in person or by telephone, without the involvement or participation of other attorneys, in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court intervention,”
Conferences
The plaintiff must file a readiness notice within five days after the last defendant answers or moves to transfer or dismiss.
“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.”
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 Schroeder decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Hurt v. Essential Resources Group, Judge Schroeder declined to strike a consumer reporting agency’s reliable-source defense at the pleading stage. He left its legal sufficiency for summary judgment or pretrial consideration.
“The Court can revisit whether this is a cognizable defense during summary judgment rulings or at pretrial.”
In Hurt, Judge Schroeder also declined to strike a defense asserting compliance with the FCRA employment-report notice provision. Even assuming the defense was insufficient, the plaintiff had shown no prejudice from leaving it pleaded.
“Even assuming Defendants’ seventh defense is insufficient, there has been no showing of prejudice to Plaintiff which would warrant the drastic remedy of striking Defendants’ seventh pleaded defense.”
In Turner v. Caine & Weiner, Judge Schroeder denied partial summary judgment based on supposedly deemed admissions. The parties’ emails formed an informal four-day extension for responses, so the responses were timely and no admissions arose.
“Despite Defendant’s lack of response, the emails demonstrate the parties mutually agreed to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to the RFAs.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss ... are GRANTED. ... ORDERED that My Health's complaints ... are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 35) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the AUO Non-Infringement MSJ (Docket No. 252) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED the motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant Dr. Reginaldo Stanley (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED and the claims against Dr. Stanley are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
“Defendants’ motions are DENIED as to the Defendants’ requests that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed.”
“ORDERED that Defendant MoneyGram International, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively, Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (Docket No. 5) and Defendant MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 23) are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. ... Defendants’ motions are GRANTED as to.the requests that the cause of action be transferred.”
“HP’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 103) is DENIED, the Motion to Expedite Briefing is DENIED-AS-MOOT”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash (Docket No. 105) is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff shall produce Mr. Vijh for a deposition within 30 days from the date of this order.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay Pending Action (Docket No. 14) is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding.”
“ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docket Nos. 7, 9) and his motion to compel the Court to act on his motions for injunctive relief (Docket No. 12) are DENIED-AS-MOOT.”
“ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion seeking release while the petition is pending (Docket No. 25) and Petitoner’s related motions (Docket Nos. 32, 33) are DENIED-AS-MOOT.”
“Defendant’s motion to compel judgment on his motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 34) is DENIED-AS-MOOT.”
“ORDERED that SynQor’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on Vicor’s § 112 Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims (Docket No. 379) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the asserted claims of the ’190 and ’702 patents are NOT INVALID for failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Vicor Corporation’s Motion for the Involuntary Dismissal of the ’290 Patent (Docket No. 339) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that that the Fourth Claim for infringement of the ’290 patent and Vicor’s Affirmative Defenses and Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims relating to the infringement, validity and enforceability of the ’290 patent are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that the Hisense ’788 MSJ (Docket No. 253) is GRANTED-IN-PART and otherwise DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the AUO ’788 MSJ (Docket No. 255) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the AUO Willfulness MSJ (Docket No. 250) is GRANTED-IN-PART and otherwise DENIED.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Eastern District of Texas, not for Judge Schroeder: 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 | 2,854 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,222 | 5.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,581 | 9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 15 | 26 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,854 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,345 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,003 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,968 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,122 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,956 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,972 | 8.6 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 Schroeder with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schroeder, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schroeder's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace