Susan J. Hightower
How Judge Hightower rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hightower
Susan J. Hightower has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas since 2019. She earned a law degree from Stanford Law School and previously served as an administrative trademark judge at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Earlier in her career, she clerked for Judge Jacques L. Wiener Jr. of the Fifth Circuit.
Judge Hightower's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hightower, 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.
- US-Magistrate-Judge-Susan-Hightower-Proposed-Scheduling-Order-for-United-States-Magistrate-Judge-Hightower.pdf ↗
- Standing-Order-Regarding-Courtroom-Opportunities-for-Newer-Attorneys.pdf ↗
Key rules
Conferences
A report on alternative dispute resolution in compliance with Local Rule CV-88 shall be filed on or before .
“A report on alternative dispute resolution in compliance with Local Rule CV-88 shall be filed on or before .”
Conferences
The parties shall file all motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join additional parties on or before .
“The parties shall file all motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join additional parties on or before .”
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 Hightower decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mullen Industries v. Meta, Hightower stayed a patent case pending inter partes review after finding that potential claim simplification, the absence of specific undue prejudice, and the early stage of litigation all favored a pause.
“In sum, the Court finds that all three factors support a stay pending inter partes review.”
In GoSecure v. CrowdStrike, Hightower recommended allowing direct and willful patent-infringement claims to proceed because the complaint plausibly tied the accused product to claim limitations and alleged continued use after notice of the patent.
“CrowdStrike’s arguments are more appropriate for the factfinding stage of this litigation, not on motion to dismiss.”
Procedural preferences
In US Surfaces v. Associated Stone Group, Hightower allowed an amendment adding the defendant’s parent company where the motion met the scheduling deadline and she found no bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or clear futility.
“US Surfaces sought leave to amend within the court-ordered deadline. The Court finds no undue delay.”
Cautions
In Redpoint v. Admiral, Hightower denied a motion to reopen discovery after finding that the movant had waited through an extended discovery period and failed to show diligence; the potential value of a deposition did not outweigh prejudice to a party that had already moved for partial summary judgment.
“On this timeline, the Court cannot find that Admiral has been diligent in pressing its claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Amended Opening Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 52), is GRANTED and this case is closed.”
“both Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 28), and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 29), are DENIED.”
“Judge Hightower recommends awarding Rebecca Webber $5,000 in attorney's fees... Rebecca Webber is entitled to $5,000 in attorney's fees and expenses under the Western District of Texas Standing Order.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 51, is DENIED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 47, is DENIED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on Plaintiff's Texas Prompt Payment Act claim and DENIED on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.”
“Defendant's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
Judge Hightower screened this self-represented plaintiff's complaint and recommended dismissal without prejudice. No party objected, and Judge Robert Pitman reviewed for clear error and adopted the recommendation. Because the court acted on its own initiative, the screening resolved no party motion.
Judge Hightower issued a recommendation on a Probation Office petition concerning an alleged supervised-release violation. The parties waived objection, and Judge David Counts adopted it after clear-error review. This was a criminal revocation matter rather than a civil party motion; the available adoption order does not state the resulting revocation or sentence.
“TEA's motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 18), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs' remaining claims survive TEA's motion to dismiss.”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report in full (Dkt. # 42), DENIES Defendant's Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. ## 36, 39)”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees (Dkt. # 45) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Wenzel's Motion to Dismiss, Or in the Alternative, Motion for Rule 7(a) Reply, (Dkt. 11), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff Michael Teague's Section 1983 First Amendment claims against Wenzel in his official capacity are DISMISSED. Wenzel's motion is DENIED on all other grounds.”
“District 8's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 13), is DENIED.”
“Meta's Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Dkt. # 23.) The Motion is GRANTED as to Counts II and VII, and those claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. The Motion is DENIED as to Counts I, III, IV, V, and IX. Plaintiff Mullen's request for leave to amend is DENIED.”
“Tanya Galinger's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint (Dkt. 7) ... are GRANTED.”
“Defendant Judith DeBerry's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint (Dkt. 8) ... are GRANTED.”
“Defendants State Bar of Texas and State Bar Board of Directors' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 9) ... are GRANTED.”
“Defendant Judge George Gallagher's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12) are GRANTED.”
“Motion for Default Judgment Against George Gallagher in his Individual Capacity (Dkt. 25) are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Hightower sits in the Austin Division and receives civil referrals from several district judges. She also takes felony guilty pleas by consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3); those criminal-duty matters are not included in the civil motion counts.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, not for Judge Hightower: 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 Hightower with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hightower, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hightower's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace