District Judge · 457th District Court
What applies in this courtroom
28 verified requirements may apply in this courtroom, by layer: 6 published by Judge Vince Santini · 9 county-wide · 2 region-wide · 11 statewide — with 9 rule deadlines across those layers. Only the judge's own rules are specific to this courtroom; the other layers apply by court, county and state scope, and a court- or case-specific order can displace them.
The tabs below show the judge-and-division layer only. The Full Premium Report assembles the complete stack — every requirement, deadline table, ruling intelligence, live case-type scan, and source appendix in one cited document.
Your first 7 Judge Intelligence Reports are free with a free account — no payment card required.
District Judge — 457th District Court, Montgomery County
Appeals from this courtroom go to the Ninth Court of Appeals.
● LiveThat court's published bench (4): Jay Wright, Kent Chambers, Leanne Johnson, Scott Golemon
County-to-district assignment per Tex. Gov't Code sec. 22.201(j), live-fetched registry.
6 verified rules specific to this judge's division, grouped by requirement category. 28 total requirements apply in this courtroom across all layers — the Full Premium Report assembles the complete stack.
No judge-level deadline on record runs shorter than a statewide deadline with the same trigger. The sentinel compares quoted timing across every published rule scoped to this judge on each visit — a clean result today is re-earned tomorrow.
Judge Santini's ADR standing order for cases the 457th District Court's Docket Control Order refers to ADR (CPRC ch. 154): parties are referred to a CPRC 154.023-154.028 procedure, defaulting to mediation with the Montgomery County Dispute Resolution Center ((936) 760-6914) if they do not agree; parties schedule through counsel (or personally if pro se), and if no agreed date is set the ADR provider/impartial third party picks a date all must attend; ADR may be rescheduled by agreement but MUST be completed no later than 30 days before the Docket-Control trial date; plaintiff's counsel must initiate the ADR-method conference (opposing counsel must still try if plaintiff fails), disagreements on method fall to the court's default, a mediator dispute may be resolved by motion to appoint, and refusal to communicate warrants a motion to compel; failure to follow the ADR requirement may bring sanctions after a show-cause hearing; ADR administration and third-party fees are split equally unless agreed otherwise, paid directly to the provider, and taxed as court costs, with a fee statement filed with the District Clerk for the Bill of Costs; the provider must file a writing reporting completion, appearance, and whether settlement resulted; and all ADR matters remain confidential under CPRC 154.053 and 154.073, with the provider and its records not subject to subpoena or production except as 154.073 permits.
Judge Santini's self-executing standing order in limine for every civil jury trial in the 457th District Court: unless suspended for a specific trial, no attorney may mention, refer to, or suggest 17 enumerated matters before the jury or venire without first approaching the bench and securing a ruling, and each attorney must admonish clients, client representatives, and non-adverse witnesses to do the same (except where essential to a truthful answer to opposing counsel). The prohibited matters: liability insurance; a defendant's liability or non-liability to pay a judgment; collateral-source payments; attorney's fees (unless a fee claim goes to the jury); a party's or witness's criminal suspicion/arrest/charge/conviction; alcohol/tobacco/controlled-substance use; settlement or mediation negotiations; discovery disputes and rulings; prior suits or claims (with a relevance exception for prior injuries); requests for stipulations before the jury; requests for files/documents before the jury (with a recollection-refresh exception); discrimination-based treatment arguments (except exemplary damages); social cost of an award (premiums, prices, taxes); financial hardship from an award or non-award; Golden Rule arguments; the effect of answers to jury questions (with a limited argument exception); and the filing of or rulings on a motion in limine.
Judge Vincenzo J. Santini's standing order governing generative AI use in the 457th District Court: attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI (the order names Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude, and AI-assisted research like Lexis+ and Westlaw Precision) in work product, research, or drafting MUST include a prescribed VERBATIM verification IN BOLD — swearing under penalty of perjury which AI programs were used, that the filer reviewed the ENTIRE pleading, that it contains no misstatements of law, misrepresented holdings, or improper citations, that it contains no sensitive or confidential information, and that no attached evidence was created, edited, enhanced, or altered by generative AI. A pleading using generative AI WITHOUT the verbatim bold verification WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The order separately prohibits: filing pleadings that misstate law, misrepresent holdings, or cite non-existent cases; entering any case participant's sensitive, confidential information into a generative AI program; filing pleadings containing such information; offering evidence created/edited/enhanced/altered by generative AI in any contested hearing (oral or submission) or trial; using interpreters that rely on voice-recognition AI for document translation or live testimony; and using experts who rely on generative AI in their methodology or opinion formation. Violations draw a duly noticed show-cause hearing with all lawful sanctions on the table — expressly including death-penalty sanctions — plus possible orders to produce ALL invoices and time logs for the pleading (fraudulent-billing check), a requirement to attach highlighted copies of all cited case law to future pleadings, and referrals to disciplinary authorities (CPRC ch. 10, TRCP 13, Penal Code §§ 37.02, 37.09 grounds recited). The court binds itself too: no generative AI in drafting orders or on county equipment.
Judge Santini's self-executing standing order authorizing use of protected health information (PHI) in every 457th District Court suit that uses it: all 'Litigation Participants' (parties, counsel of record and their firm staff, testifying and consulting experts, other litigation-support and copy services, witnesses, mediators, arbitrators, and the Court) may disclose, receive, and use PHI in the litigation without further authorization or order under HIPAA, the Texas Medical Privacy Act, or other law. Any PHI filed or offered in court must have the patient's (1) name, (2) birthdate, (3) SSN, (4) driver's-license/government-ID number, (5) address, and (6) telephone number redacted; the District Clerk may, without further order, restrict an unredacted filing and require a conformed redacted copy, and the Court may reject an unredacted document offered in court or require a conformed copy; any PHI document offered in court (admitted or not, redacted or not) is sealed for exhibit-filing and the appellate record. The order authorizes PHI use only for the pending litigation, and notes that PHI received under it is subject to electronic disclosure.
Judge Santini's single-document procedure governing all motions to compel discovery in the 457th District Court, decided on the submission docket: the movant contacts the court (936-538-3697) for a submission date and serves notice per the county district-court local rules (Rule 3.7 subparts B/C, where not inconsistent); the motion sets out each disputed request BY ITS PROPOUNDED NUMBER with the request, each objection, and each answer/response quoted VERBATIM, followed immediately by succinct argument and authority for why each objection should be overruled or each response is deficient; the motion is e-filed and e-served with a Notice of Submission, and a Word/WordPerfect copy is emailed to the respondent; a proposed order restating each disputed request with space for the court's rulings is e-filed and emailed (named "[Case Number] - Proposed Order - [Party] Motion to Compel") to david.kallus@mctx.org; the respondent's response answers each discrete objection/response with argument and authority and is e-filed/e-served plus emailed to the movant; the movant may add a succinct reply beneath each response. The written discovery itself is NOT attached (except the specific highlighted page needed to prove a misquote). A no-response motion needs only a simple motion stating the service dates plus a simple proposed order. Oral-deposition compel motions follow the same steps using deposition page/line references instead of request numbers.
Judge Santini's standing order on sensitive data in the 457th District Court, tracking TRCP 21c (sensitive data = government ID numbers; financial account numbers; and a birth date, home address, or the name of anyone who was a minor when the suit was filed): the District Clerk may, without further order, restrict from internet posting any document containing unredacted sensitive data; a filer who must include unredacted sensitive data must mark the document "NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA," and the clerk may restrict any so-marked document from internet posting; and where a filed document contains unredacted sensitive data in violation of the rule, the clerk may require or allow a redacted substitute under Rule 21c(e) that may then be posted.
No judge-scoped deadlines on this tab. Deadlines are extracted only when the source rule text states them — we never infer or calculate dates the rule does not explicitly contain. 9 rule deadlines apply in this courtroom across all layers — assembled with citations in the Full Premium Report.
Timing shown here is quoted from the rule text. Compute your actual date against the court's calendar and the rule itself — not legal advice.
No verified ruling summary yet. BenchPath generates ruling summaries from opinion and docket corpora (CourtListener where covered) and publishes them only after human review — fabricated judicial analytics are exactly what this platform refuses to ship.
The attributed-opinion corpus covers Florida's and California's appellate decisions today; a Texas opinion corpus is a separate build. Absence here is a coverage statement, never evidence about this judge.
Use the live case-law search below to see what exists for this judge today.
Answer three quick questions. The platform pulls Vince Santini's full public case-law record from the source, newest first — your matter never narrows the pull; it directs the relevance ranking and the dual-AI analysis. Every hit comes back Bluebook-cited with the opinion's own words quoted verbatim. The scan takes the time precision takes.
Case-law search
CourtListener · free connector · liveCoverage note: CourtListener is strongest for federal courts and state appellate courts. Texas trial-court opinions are essentially absent from the source — an absence of results is a coverage gap, not evidence about this judge.
last checked October 24, 2026
Research connectors
CourtListener
● liveFree Law Project
Free. Opinions, dockets, RECAP, judge metadata. Powering the case-law search on this page.
Westlaw
○ bring your licenseThomson Reuters
Bring your firm's license — enterprise connector queries your judge and related cases inside Westlaw. Phase 2.
LexisNexis
○ bring your licenseRELX
Bring your firm's license — enterprise connector for Lexis+ research tied to your matter. Phase 2.
BenchPath never scrapes licensed databases. Westlaw and LexisNexis connect only through your firm's own credentials and entitlements when the enterprise connectors ship.
District Judge — 457th District Court, Montgomery Countycurrent
date not recorded — present
assignment source →No source changes detected for this judge yet — when the underlying court pages move, it shows up here first.