Ronald Hurley Clark
How Judge Clark decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A venue-transfer request needed concrete evidence that the proposed forum was clearly more convenient.
“After evaluating the venue transfer factors in accordance with Fifth Circuit precedent, the court finds that Genentech has not demonstrated that the Northern District would be ‘clearly more convenient’ than the Eastern District.”
He entered summary judgment where an inequitable-conduct defense lacked evidence meeting the clear-and-convincing standard.
“Clear Channel has provided scant evidence of the failure to disclose material information or of submission of false information, and virtually no evidence of intent to deceive.”
He treated specific, case-linked evidence as essential when a movant sought protection from ordinary forum depositions.
“Absent a specific showing of hardship tied to an individual’s circumstances, a general order requiring that the depositions of out-of-town plaintiffs be taken telephonically is not warranted.”
Procedural preferences
He used page limits to force counsel to identify and focus on the most important dispositive issues.
“The page limit was adopted to encourage counsel in focusing on key issues.”
He expected strict adherence to protective orders governing confidential litigation material.
“Complete good faith compliance with protective orders is essential to modern discovery practices and counsel must temper their zeal in representing their clients with their overreaching duty as officers of the court.”
Cautions
A discovery request filed on the eve of scheduled depositions drew sharp criticism and was denied.
“Such tactics, dredged up from the cesspool of ‘Rambo’ litigation, cannot be countenanced.”
He struck affidavit assertions that were conclusory, unsupported, or inconsistent with an earlier affidavit.
“The Court strikes portions of Mr. Tatum's April 11 Affidavit because they are conclusory, unsubstantiated, and/or contradict the prior March 20 Affidavit.”
He warned that excessive motion practice can signal an inability to present a clear dispositive theory.
“Inundating the court with a veritable smorgasbord of issues from which to choose leads to the conclusion that a party is unable to articulate clear grounds for judgement as a matter of law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Novo Nordisk, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer Venue [Doc. #8] is GRANTED IN PART. This case will be STAYED pending resolution of the jurisdictional and licensing agreement issues by the Southern District of New York.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [Doc. # 6] is DENIED.”
“are GRANTED in part on the ground that the card authorization amount in the AT & T System is linked before activation and on the ground of willfulness, and DENIED as to other grounds stated.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AT & T’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on AT & T’s Affirmative Defenses [Doc. # 479] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions [Doc. # 308, 311, 314, 321 and 384] are DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Genentech, Inc. and Biogen Idee, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue [Doc. # 31] is DENIED.”
“The Court further ORDERS that ASIC’s Rule 12 motion to dismiss and motion to strike Defendant Colony’s answer, counterclaim and cross-claim [doc. #13] is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The motion is denied on the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; denied on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Colony’s breach of contract claim against ASIC; granted with regard to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Colony’s statutory claim under the Texas Insurance Code, and denied with regard to the Rule 12(f) motion to strike. It is further ORDERED that ASIC’s motion to strike defendant Michael Buckley d/b/a Buckley & Sons Plumbing’s Answer and Counterclaim filed against ASIC [doc. # 22] is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that The Ohio Willow Wood Co. and ThermoPly, Ine.’s Joint Motion to Vacate is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct [Doc. # 97] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Blackboard, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Defendant Desire2Learn, Inc.’s Motion For Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement For Exceeding the Court’s Page Limitations [Doc. # 135] is GRANTED. Defendant Desire2Learn, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative for Partial Summary Judgment, of Non-Infringement of Claim 36 of U.S. Patent 6,988,138 [Doc. #132] is struck.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Ariba’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 167] is GRANTED IN PART. Emptoris’ 5.2, 6.1 and 7.0 software products infringe claim 82 of the '114 Patent.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Supplement the Record [Doc. # 7] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [Doc. # 6] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all currently pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. A final judgment consistent with the Memorandum and Order shall be forthcoming.”
“ORDERED that the Defendant Schwarz-Pharma Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 90) is GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant Schwarz-Pharma Inc. are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 193 days (N = 20).
The bounded January 2004 enumeration contains twenty terminated cases. It is a narrow archival slice, not a career-wide caseload measure.
Put Judge Clark's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Clark actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Clark's own signed orders and cites them.