David C. Godbey

How Judge Godbey rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Position
District judge
Status
Senior status
Appointed by
George W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
August 2, 2002
ABA rating
Unanimously Well Qualified
Education
Southern Methodist University (B.S., B.S.E.E., 1978); Harvard Law School (J.D., 1982)
Signed orders read
28

About Judge Godbey

David C. Godbey is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Godbey received a commission on August 2, 2002. Judge Godbey assumed senior status on September 18, 2025.

Judge Godbey's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Godbey, 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.

Key rules

Discovery

Request an expedited discovery hearing by separate letter at least ten days before the requested docket.

“Requests must be made by separate letter to the Court’s Judicial Assistant, Donna Hocker Beyer and must be received at least ten (10) days prior to the requested docket”

Discovery

Use the judge's standard protective order or explain why a different form is necessary and provide a redline.

“Parties desiring entry of a protective order under Rule 26(c), except in patent cases, must either (a) request entry of an order in Judge Godbey's standard form (found below, which is derived from this Court's Miscellaneous Order 62) or (b) if entry of a protective order in a different form is requested, the motion must (1) explain why Judge Godbey's standard form is inadequate in the particular circumstances of the case, and (2) include a redlined version of the requested form showing where it differs from Judge Godbey's standard form.”

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Godbey decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Stephens v. DFW LinQ, he denied a motion to compel arbitration because the record did not let the court determine whether a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed.

“Because the Court cannot determine whether a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists between Stephens and DFW LinQ, the Court denies DFW LinQ's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.”

In Yoshikawa v. Exxon Mobil, Godbey held that the defendants’ conflicting expert testimony did not rebut the classwide presumption of reliance.

“Defendants have not carried their burden to rebut the Basic presumption. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption of reliance.”

Procedural preferences

In Goodson's unpaid-commissions suit, Godbey granted a motion to compel sales and commission records with associated metadata in native format after finding that Nasco's production did not adequately answer the requests.

“Because Defendant Nasco Healthcare has not complied with Plaintiff Goodson's discovery requests for relevant information that are proportional to the needs of the case, the Court grants [the] motion to compel. ... Nasco Healthcare is ordered to produce documents responsive to Goodson's Second Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 16, including associated metadata in a native format within fourteen (14) days of this Order.”

In Vaughn, the court allowed a fourth amendment after finding good cause and sufficient factual detail to make the proposed claims plausible; the earlier amendment and strike motions became moot.

“amendment is not futile because Vaughn’s proposed amendments include sufficient factual detail to make out plausible claims.”

Cautions

In Aston’s case, he dismissed the claims with prejudice because the plaintiff again failed to state a claim after an earlier opportunity to cure pleading defects.

“Because Aston has again failed to state a claim even after the opportunity to cure defects after its previous complaint was dismissed, the Court grants Wilmington's motion and dismisses Aston's claims with prejudice.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Alvarado v. Air Systems Components LP
3:19-cv-02057-N · 2022-03-15
Motion to compel discovery (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the Court denies Defendants' motion to quash the deposition notice served on ASC and grants Alvarado's motion to compel ASC's appearance. ... Because Alvarado has not shown good cause to conduct new depositions of JCI, Addington, or George, the Court denies her motion for leave to take these depositions and grants Defendants' corresponding motions to quash.”

Motion for protective order (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court grants Defendants' motion for protective order as to deposition topics 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 and grants in part Defendants' motion for protective order as to topics 10, 11, 12, and 13. The Court denies Defendants' motion for protective order as to all other topics in the notice.”

Intermed Services Management Co., LP v. Horseshoe, LLC
3:22-cv-00191-N · 2023-09-06
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“Upon evidentiary hearing, the Court concludes that the parties entered a valid agreement; thus, the Court grants the motion to compel and denies the motion to dismiss as moot.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“the Court grants the motion to compel and denies the motion to dismiss as moot.”

Goodson v. Nasco Healthcare Inc.
3:21-cv-01467-N · 2023-08-28
Motion to compel discovery (plaintiff) Granted

“Because Defendant Nasco Healthcare has not complied with Plaintiff Goodson's discovery requests for relevant information that are proportional to the needs of the case, the Court grants [the] motion to compel. ... Nasco Healthcare is ordered to produce documents responsive to Goodson's Second Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 16, including associated metadata in a native format within fourteen (14) days of this Order.”

Hart v. State Farm Lloyds
3:22-cv-01367-N · 2024-01-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“This Order addresses Defendant State Farm Lloyds' ('State Farm') motion for summary judgment [15]. For the reasons below, the Court grants summary judgment to State Farm on all claims.”

Stephens v. DFW LinQ Transport, Inc.
3:24-cv-00352-N · 2024-09-30
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Denied

“Because the Court cannot determine whether a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists between Stephens and DFW LinQ, the Court denies DFW LinQ's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.”

Salt and Light Energy Equipment, LLC v. Origin Bancorp, Inc.
3:22-cv-00654-N · 2025-08-12
Motion for attorney fees (defendant) Granted

“For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion, but awards reduced fees as specified below. ... The Court awards Origin $1,059,334.10 in attorney's fees and $61,956.60 in related nontaxable expenses.”

Rotstain v. Trustmark National Bank (Stanford receivership / OSIC)
3:09-cv-2384-N · 2022-01-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“The Court concludes that fact issues exist as to the majority of Plaintiffs' nonabandoned claims. Defendants have, however, demonstrated entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on a subset of issues. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motions for summary judgment. ... the Court grants summary judgment in favor of TD Bank with respect to OSIC's constructive TUFTA claims and in favor of HSBC on any constructive TUFTA claim tied to conduct outside of the relevant limitations period. The Court denies summary judgment on all grounds asserted by the parties.”

Aston Custom Homes & Design, Inc. v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB
3:23-cv-1639-N · 2023-11-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Because Aston has again failed to state a claim even after the opportunity to cure defects after its previous complaint was dismissed, the Court grants Wilmington's motion and dismisses Aston's claims with prejudice.”

Sasoro 13, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
3:22-cv-02313-N · 2023-02-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Because Sasoro has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court grants 7-Eleven's motion. The Court dismisses Sasoro's claims without prejudice and grants leave to amend... Sasoro may file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.”

Archer v. Kennedy
3:21-cv-748-N · 2023-07-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Because the Archers have not provided sufficient evidence of damages, the Court grants Kennedy's motion for summary judgment.”

Vela Wood PC v. Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc.
3:19-cv-1140-N · 2020-09-10
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants Associated Industries' motion for summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Court concludes that Associated Industries does not have a duty to defend Plaintiffs in the underlying JB&A lawsuit. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants Associated Industries' motion for summary judgment.”

Scroggins v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
3:23-CV-1489-N · 2025-09-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Because Scroggins has not raised a genuine issue of material fact, the Court grants summary judgment to DART on these claims.”

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years8
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202608
Sep 202509
Mar 202509
Sep 2024012
Mar 202409
Sep 2023010
Mar 202308
Sep 2022010
Mar 2022010
Sep 2021011
Mar 2021011
Sep 202005

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 Northern District of Texas, not for Judge Godbey: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed4,1035.9 months
Closed with no court action8294 months
Closed before pretrial3,2286.3 months
Closed during or after pretrial1116.1 months
Closed during trial3519.3 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20254,1035.9 months
Sep 20243,6485.6 months
Sep 20233,8086.5 months
Sep 20228,69856 months
Sep 20216,09419.4 months
Sep 20206,29413.3 months
Sep 20193,3676.9 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 Godbey with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Godbey, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Godbey's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace