Keener et al v. Kobach

Filing 240

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 238 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 236 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Incurred. Response deadline 3/15/2021. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 2/22/2021. (kas)

Case 2:15-cv-09300-JAR Document 240 Filed 02/22/21 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PARKER BEDNASEK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-9300-JAR

SCOTT SCHWAB, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State for the State of Kansas,
Defendant.

ORDER
On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Parker Bednasek filed his Motion for Attorney Fees, as
well as his memorandum in support and supporting documentation.1 Before the Court is
Secretary of State Scott Schwab’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 238) to respond to the fee
motion until March 29, 2021. Plaintiff objects to the length of the requested extension,
consenting to an extension only until February 25, 2021.
Under the Court’s local rule, Plaintiff was required to “promptly initiate consultation with
the other party,” upon filing their motion for attorney fees. 2 If the parties disagree after
consulting, a statement of consultation and memorandum in support of fees, along with
documentation, must be filed within 30 days of the fee motion. According to the correspondence
attached to Plaintiff’s response, he initiated consultation with the Kansas Attorney General’s
(“AG”) office, as required by the rule, on December 29, 2020, offering to meet on January 7 or
8.

1

Docs. 236, 237.

2

D. Kan. R. 54.2(a).

Case 2:15-cv-09300-JAR Document 240 Filed 02/22/21 Page 2 of 4

The AG’s office did not direct Plaintiff to the attorney in that office with consultation
authority, Mr. Stanley Parker, until January 14, 2021. The following day, Mr. Parker advised
Plaintiff’s counsel that he could not “comment” on the fee request until he reviewed it, and that
he would confer after review.3 Therefore, Plaintiff agreed to file his memorandum in support of
the fee request and supporting documentation along with the fee motion on January 28, 2021,
and set up a consultation meeting with Mr. Parker for February 8, 2021, at noon.
On the morning of the scheduled consultation, Mr. Parker emailed Plaintiff’s counsel
with some substantive objections to the January 28 request and advised that he needed additional
time to review before he would be prepared to consult. He calculated the consultation deadline
as March 1, and asked if Plaintiff’s counsel would object to rescheduling the consultation for
February 26 and extending the response deadline to March 30. Plaintiff responded by email that
he objected to the requested extension. Defendant then filed the instant motion and Plaintiff
objected.
Defendant’s request is complicated by the fact that, as a courtesy, Plaintiff filed the
memorandum in support of the fee request thirty days before it was due. The local rule
contemplates a fee motion, followed by a thirty-day period for consultation.4 After an
unsuccessful consultation, Plaintiff must file within 30 days: (1) the statement of consultation;
and (2) the memorandum in support of the fee request.5 The opposing party’s 14-day response
deadline is triggered by the memorandum-in-support filing.6 Had Plaintiff in this case followed
this model and filed only a fee motion on January 28, followed by an unsuccessful consultation,
3

Ex. B.

4

D. Kan. R. 54.2(a)–(c), (e).

5

Rule 54.2(c). If the parties reach an agreement, they must file a stipulation with the Court and submit a
proposed order. Rule 54.2(b).
6

Rule 54.2(e)

2

Case 2:15-cv-09300-JAR Document 240 Filed 02/22/21 Page 3 of 4

the statement of consultation and memorandum in support would not be due until March 1, 2021.
If those documents were filed on the due date, the response deadline would be March 15, 2021.
But here, Plaintiff submitted his memorandum early, as a courtesy, to aid with consultation.
Even if Defendant responded within 14 days, the Court would not consider the motion “until the
moving party files the statement of consultation in compliance with” the local rule.7
The underlying fee request involves a substantial amount of money, and time records
over a lengthy period of time. Good cause exists for a reasonable extension of time to consider
the documentation and respond if the motion is indeed contested. But the Court cautions the
parties not to conflate or confuse the obligation to consult with the need to consider objections
and respond. The consultation period is designed to provide the parties with ample time to
mediate a fee request, not to provide the opposing party with additional time to strategize its
responsive filing. Because Defendant was essentially given a thirty-day windfall of additional
time to respond due to Plaintiff’s early filing, the Court declines to extend the response deadline
even further to March 29, particularly given Defendant’s reticence to consult with Plaintiff
before now.
Instead, the Court finds good cause for an extension of Defendant’s response deadline
until March 15, 2021—the date its response would be due if the parties had followed the typical
order of filings contemplated by the Court’s local rule. If the parties are able to set up
consultation earlier than March 1, and that consultation effort proves unsuccessful, Defendant
would obviously have more time to work on a response memorandum than if it chooses to wait
until the March 1 deadline to consult.

7

D. Kan. 54.2(d).

3

Case 2:15-cv-09300-JAR Document 240 Filed 02/22/21 Page 4 of 4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Secretary of State Scott
Schwab’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 238) is granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant’s extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees is extended to
March 15, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 22, 2021
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4