Derek T. Gilliland
How Judge Gilliland rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gilliland
Derek T. Gilliland is a U.S. magistrate judge in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. He earned a mechanical engineering degree from Texas A&M University and a law degree from Baylor University School of Law. His judicial work includes patent and trade secret cases referred by district judges.
Judge Gilliland's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gilliland, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- FAQsforGilliland.pdf ↗
- DiscoveryDisputeTemplate.docx ↗
- Guidelines%20for%20Setting%20and%20Resetting%20Hearings.pdf ↗
- ProposedSchedulingOrderTemplate-08042026.pdf ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
As for non-discovery motions, the Court will hold a hearing if a party requests it.
“As for non-discovery motions, the Court will hold a hearing if a party requests it.”
Filing
the Court will set a Scheduling Conference with the parties and in advance of the hearing, parties are to e-file a Rule 26(f) report and proposed scheduling order.
“the Court will set a Scheduling Conference with the parties and in advance of the hearing, parties are to e-file a Rule 26(f) report and proposed scheduling order.”
Discovery
Fact discovery must be completed by this date.
“Fact discovery must be completed by this date.”
Trial
Paper copies are not required but will be accepted by the court for hearing purposes if digital versions cannot be provided.
“Paper copies are not required but will be accepted by the court for hearing purposes if digital versions cannot be provided.”
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 8, 2026).
- Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Request to Change Deadlines ↗
- Order Regarding Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- General Order Regarding Electronic Filing of Transcripts ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Attorney Admissions and CLE Requirements ↗
- Privacy Policy and Public Access to Electronic Files ↗
- Standing Order Regarding the Electronic Submission of Sealed Civil Documents ↗
How Judge Gilliland decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a dental-scanning patent dispute, Gilliland recommended postponing a Section 101 challenge until claim construction could clarify the asserted claims, leaving renewal of the motion available.
“The Court prefers to conduct a § 101 invalidity analysis on a full record.”
In a patent suit filed in the wrong district, Gilliland recommended transferring the case to an agreed proper district rather than dismissing it.
“When the parties agree that venue would be proper in another district, the interest of justice weighs in favor of a transfer to that district.”
Cautions
In another patent suit, Gilliland recommended dismissal with leave to amend where the complaint and claim chart left several limitations of the asserted claim unmapped to the accused product.
“The claim chart attached to the Original Complaint also fails to identify how the defendant is accused of meeting several claim elements, including the server, rendered data, or memory.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Given the potential impact of this Court's construction on the § 101 analysis, the undersigned recommends denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to refiling after claim construction. ... Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 42) should be DENIED without prejudice to refiling after claim construction.”
“The R&R recommends that the motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be denied without prejudice to Defendant reasserting patent ineligibility at summary judgment. Having reviewed the R&R, the objections, and the relevant portions of the record, the Court OVERRULES the objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and DENIES the motion.”
“While the delay in prosecuting this case is regrettable, it does not rise to the level requiring dismissal. ... Given the development of the case, dismissal for lack of prosecution would not be proper. ... the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) be DENIED.”
“the undersigned recommends that Defendant's Motion be DENIED as untimely. If the Court were to address the underlying merits of Defendant's Motion, the undersigned still recommends that Defendant's Motion be DENIED as failing to rise to the level of sanctionable conduct.”
“After considering the pleadings, supporting evidence, and applicable legal authorities, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge Albright DENY the Attorney’s Fee Motion (ECF No. 8).”
“The report recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) should be DENIED. ... IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Gilliland (ECF No. 15) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.”
“For the following reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendant's Motion be GRANTED. ... IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-entitled cause and all claims against Trend by Company and against Company by Trend herein are dismissed, with prejudice to the re-filing of same.”
“For the following reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Case be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. ... It is therefore ORDERED that all claims and counterclaims in the above-styled case are dismissed, with prejudice to the rights of any party to refile the same or any part thereof.”
“After careful consideration of the briefs, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion be DENIED to the extent dismissal is requested but that the case be TRANSFERRED to the District of Colorado. ... it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge ... that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be DENIED to the extent Defendant requests dismissal. The undersigned further recommends that Defendant's request in the alternative to transfer the case to the District of Colorado be GRANTED and the case be transferred.”
“The report recommends that the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (ECF No. 34) be GRANTED. ... IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Gilliland (ECF No. 39) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff clarified and confirmed that he was not alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, disability, or age, and did not object to removing those allegations from the Case. As such, this Court recommends that those allegations be dismissed from this Complaint. Plaintiff's allegation of racial discrimination, however, will remain and go forward. ... the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs failed to file a response as required. Therefore, the Court will treat Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as unopposed, and recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. ... it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (ECF No. 11) be GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 253 days (N = 9).
- Judge Gilliland's Waco civil work includes cases he decides by consent and matters referred for a recommendation.
- The cases reviewed span wage-and-hour, Social Security, contract, mortgage-servicing, insurance, personal-injury, patent, trademark, age-discrimination, and bankruptcy disputes, alongside criminal-duty matters.
- Many cases were filed before he took office in 2022 and were later reassigned or referred to him, so their full durations are not attributed to his service.
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 | 16 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 16 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 32 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 36 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 51 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 55 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 90 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
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 Texas, not for Judge Gilliland: 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 | 3,691 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,171 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,115 | 7.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 366 | 14 months |
| Closed during trial | 39 | 30.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,691 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,440 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,823 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,633 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,178 | 8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,990 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,854 | 7.1 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 Gilliland with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gilliland, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gilliland's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace