Loading…
Standing order of the 106th District Court (Dawson, Gaines, Garza and Lynn Counties): Community Supervision and Corrections Department files are judicial records not subject to disclosure or production by subpoena without the prior written approval of the judge of the supervising court; department officers may not release a probationer's file without that judge's written consent, and may testify only to matters of public record unless the judge gives prior written authorization.
Texas > Seventh Administrative Judicial Region > Lynn County > 106th District Court.
IN THE 106TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DAWSON, GAINES, GARZA AND LYNN COUNTIES STATE OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER The Court finds that several Community Supervision and Correction Department officers have at times been subpoenaed to testify along with a duces tecum for a probationer’s file(s). The Court also finds that such Community Supervision and Correction Department files are judicial records and are not subject to disclosure or production via a subpoena without prior written approval of the Judge of the court supervising any such probationer whose file has been subpoenaed. The Court shall only permit testimony from a Community Supervision and Correction Department officer regarding matters that are of public record. IT IS ORDERED that Community Supervision and Correction Department officers in the 106th Judicial District shall not disclose or otherwise make available any probationer’s file to anyone without prior written consent from the Judge of the supervising court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Community Supervision and Correction Department officers in the 106th Judicial District shall not testify to any matter about a probationer that is contained within a department file that is not of public record without prior written authorization of the Judge of the supervising court. SIGNED August 17, 2020. [signature] Reed A. Filley, Presiding Judge 106th Judicial District Court [File stamp: FILED AT 9:0_ A M. O'CLOCK, AUG 18 2020, [signature], SANDRA LAWS, District Clerk; the last digit of the handwritten time is not legible]
IN THE 106TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DAWSON, GAINES, GARZA AND LYNN COUNTIES STATE OF TEXAS STANDING ORDER The Court finds that several Community Supervision and Correction Department officers have at times been subpoenaed to testify along with a duces tecum for a probationer’s file(s). The Court also finds that such Community Supervision and Correction Department files are judicial records and
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-24 (AJR-7 Seventh Region build) from BenchPath custody sources/documents/af00dbd78af84d49-standing-order-for-cscd-subpoenaed.pdf (application/pdf, 492712 bytes, sha256 af00dbd78af84d49aa781d2a7d20d7440d579249e90e14b09aa202ff483317d7; 1 pages) - the TOPICs-registered document: transcribed from the rendered pages of the scanned PDF (the machine OCR layer was not relied on), every page read against the render; signature, seal and file-stamp blocks bracketed. The four county registrations are separate scans of the same signed order (identical body; each carries its own county clerk file stamp).
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.