Johnson et al v. Textron Aviation, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 12 Motion to Stay. The parties shall submit a revised proposed scheduling order as directed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on November 15, 2023. (mls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
STEPHEN JOHNSON; ROBYN
JOHNSON; STEPHEN JOHNSON PPA
AND BEST FRIEND OF P.J., A MINOR
Case No. 23-2378-DDC-RES
TEXTRON AVIATION, INC.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’1 Motion to Stay. ECF No. 12. Defendant
Textron Aviation Inc. (“Defendant” or “Textron”) opposes the Motion. ECF No. 16. For the
reasons explained below, the Motion is denied. The Court nonetheless exercises its inherent
authority to set deadlines and control the scope of discovery for efficient case management, as
discussed in further detail below.
This case and at least seven other cases pending in two Connecticut state courts arise from
an airplane crash on September 2, 2021, in Farmington, Connecticut, whereby a Citation 560XL
aircraft crashed into the back of the Trumpf, Inc. factory building where Plaintiff Stephen Johnson
(“Johnson”) was working at the time. ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 13 at 1. According to the
complaint, the pilot in command set the parking brake in the aircraft but did not fully depress the
The Motion uses both the singular form of “Plaintiff” and the plural form. The
Court presumes that the use of the singular form is an oversight in that all Plaintiffs are aligned
and represented by the same counsel, and all Plaintiffs move for a stay.
aircraft’s toe breaks, which meant that the parking brake was not fully engaged. ECF No. 1 at 16.
The pilot was able to taxi and attempt takeoff even though the parking brake remained partially
engaged, but the parking brake prevented the aircraft from achieving the necessary speed for a safe
takeoff. Id. As a result, the aircraft crashed into the Trumpf building. Id. at 17. The pilot, copilot, and two passengers perished, and Johnson and a coworker sustained injuries.
Johnson, his spouse—Plaintiff Robyn Johnson—and their minor child filed this case
against Textron in the District of Kansas on August 31, 2023. See ECF No. 1. According to the
complaint, Textron is the successor in interest and in liability to the Cessna Aircraft Company,
which manufactured the aircraft at issue. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiffs allege that the aircraft was defective
and unreasonably dangerous for multiple reasons, as set out in the complaint. These include that:
the aircraft’s parking brake could remain partially engaged in a manner causing dangerous drag
from the brake and negatively impacting aircraft takeoff performance; the pull knob was obscured
from view by the co-pilot, preventing a cross-check confirmation of the proper takeoff
configuration; the aircraft was not equipped with a warning annunciator light to alert the pilots that
the parking brake was engaged; and the aircraft’s pilot’s operating handbook and/or an adequate
checklist failed to address these defects, among multiple other issues set out in the complaint. Id.
at 17-27. Johnson asserts claims for products liability (Count 1) and recklessness under a
Connecticut statute (Count 2). Id. at 17-28. Johnson, his spouse, and minor child assert loss-ofconsortium claims (Counts 3-5). Id. at 28-30.
On September 1, 2023, Johnson additionally filed a case in Connecticut state court:
Johnson, et al. v. Textron Aviation, Inc., et al. ECF No. 13 at 3. Johnson states that in that case,
he and other plaintiffs have brought claims against Textron; Brook Haven Properties, LLC
(“Book Haven”), which owned the aircraft; Interstate Aviation, Inc. (“Interstate Aviation”), the
corporation that employed the pilots and conducted the flight; the pilot and the co-pilot
(presumably their estates); and “the Havilands,” which the Court presumes means the Brook
Haven principals, although this is not clear. Id.
Plaintiffs’ Motion briefly summarizes the other litigation pending in Connecticut state
court, including cases brought against Textron, Interstate Aviation, and Brook Haven, which
Sylvester, as personal representative of the Estate of
Courtney Haviland and William Shriner v. Interstate
Aviation, Inc., et al., filed by the estates of the passengers on
March 27, 2023;
Morrow, et al. v. Textron Aviation, Inc., et al., filed by the
co-pilot’s spouse and estate on March 29, 2023;
O’Leary, et al. v. Brook Haven Properties, LLC, et al., filed
by the pilot’s estate and other unspecified plaintiffs on
August 18, 2023;
The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al.,
v. Textron Aviation, Inc., et al., filed by Trumpf’s insurer
and subrogee and other unspecified plaintiffs on August 29,
The Connecticut Lights and Power Company v. Interstate
Aviation, Inc., et al., filed by a utility company on September
15, 2023, seeking damages for alleged damage to its assets
caused by the crash; and
Lennehan v. Interstate Aviation, Inc., et al., filed by
Johnson’s coworker on September 20, 2023.
Id. at 2-4.
Textron filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on May 18, 2023, in
Morrow, and on May 19, 2023, in Sylvester. Id. at 3. Those motions remain pending, and Textron
is expected to contest personal jurisdiction in the other Connecticut cases. See ECF No. 16 at 2.
According to the Motion, the parties in the case with the first-filed motion to dismiss are resolving
disputes concerning the scope and substance of jurisdictional discovery, and the plaintiff in that
case has not yet filed a response to the motion. ECF No. 15 at 3. The Motion speculates that many
of the plaintiffs in the pending Connecticut cases will seek to participate in jurisdictional discovery
as well. Id. at 5.
On September 22, 2023, the Court set this case for a scheduling conference on October 25,
2023. ECF No. 7. But two days prior to the scheduling conference, Plaintiffs filed the present
Motion to Stay, which requests that the Court entirely stay this case pending the Connecticut
courts’ rulings on Textron’s pending and anticipated motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. ECF No. 12 at 1. At the scheduling conference, the Court discussed the Motion with
the parties, discussed the parties’ respective positions on staying discovery, and set an expedited
briefing schedule. ECF No. 15. As stated on the record, both sides believe that it could take up to
a year for the Connecticut courts to decide the issue of personal jurisdiction over Textron. Because
the outcome of the Motion had the potential of altering or staying case management deadlines, the
Court continued the scheduling conference pending the resolution of the Motion. Id.
As discussed during the scheduling conference, Plaintiffs first filed a case in this District
and then filed the Johnson case in Connecticut state court. Plaintiffs explain that they “hedged
against waiting for the savings state if Textron succeeds on its personal jurisdiction argument in
Connecticut,” instead opting to file this case in the District of Kansas and to file a separate case in
Connecticut state court. ECF No. 13 at 5. Plaintiffs believe that if Textron is successful on its
personal jurisdiction arguments in Connecticut, all of the now-pending Connecticut cases would
need to be refiled in Kansas, with Textron likely to remove to this District any cases refiled in
Kansas state court. Id. If the Connecticut courts find that Textron is subject to personal jurisdiction
in Connecticut, Plaintiffs “will withdraw this case,” id., which Plaintiffs re-confirmed during the
The Colorado River Doctrine
Plaintiffs’ Motion and accompanying memorandum seek a general stay of discovery,
relying on the first-to-file rule and this District’s case law. ECF Nos. 12 and 13. In response,
Defendant cites the Colorado River doctrine, ECF No. 16, an abstention doctrine “empowering
district courts to stay or dismiss a federal suit pending the resolution of a parallel state court
proceeding.” HSBC Bank (Uruguay) S.A. v. Seaboard Corp., No. 21-CV-2435-DDC-TJJ, 2022
WL 4447416, at *16 (D. Kan. Sept. 23, 2022) (quoting Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v.
United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976) (internal quotations omitted)).
Defendant, however, does not explain why this abstention doctrine provides the appropriate
legal framework for addressing Plaintiffs’ Motion when Plaintiffs did not invoke or even mention
the Colorado River doctrine in their Motion or at the October 25, 2023 scheduling conference
when the Court discussed the parties’ positions on the Motion. ECF No. 15. In reply, Plaintiffs
concede that Defendant “apparently is correct” that the first-to-file rule—raised in Plaintiffs’
opening brief—applies to cases proceeding in different federal district courts and that Colorado
River is “[p]erhaps more instructive[.]” ECF No. 17 at 1-2.
There are two reasons why the Court will not stay this case based on the Colorado River
doctrine. First, “[g]enerally, the Court will not consider relief requested for the first time in a reply
brief.” In re Bank of Am. Wage & Hour Emp. Pracs. Litig., 275 F.R.D. 534, 537 (D. Kan. 2011)
(citing M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 565 F.3d 753, 768 n.7 (10th Cir. 2009); Minshall v.
McGraw Broad. Co., 323 F.3d 1273, 1288 (10th Cir. 2003)). Although the Court understands that
Plaintiffs’ reply brief addresses an issue raised in the Defendant’s response brief, Plaintiffs did not
cite to or move for a stay based on the Colorado River doctrine in its Motion. The reply brief is
neither the appropriate time nor the appropriate vehicle to raise—for the first time—a basis for
Second, even if Plaintiffs invoked the Colorado River doctrine in their opening motion, no
party presented sufficient information on this record for the Court to conclude that the Colorado
River doctrine applies here. Before considering the Colorado River factors, the Court must first
determine whether the federal and state proceedings are parallel. See Allen v. Bd. of Educ., Unified
Sch. Dist. 436, 68 F.3d 401, 403 (10th Cir. 1995) (“Before reaching the abstention issue, the district
court must determine whether the state and federal proceedings are parallel.” (internal quotations
omitted)); see also United States v. City of Las Cruces, 289 F.3d 1170, 1182-83 (10th Cir. 2002)
(“Requiring district courts to first determine whether the federal and state proceedings are parallel
before considering the other Colorado River factors is consistent with the narrowness of the
doctrine.”); Fox v. Maulding, 16 F.3d 1079, 1082 (10th Cir. 1994) (reversing the district court’s
dismissal under the Colorado River doctrine because, among other reasons, the district court had
not explained why the state and federal proceedings were parallel and directing that “[o]n remand,
the district court must first determine whether the state and federal proceedings are parallel . . . ”).
While the parties have briefed some of the Colorado River factors, they did not directly
address the threshold issue of whether the federal and state proceedings are truly parallel.
Defendant seemingly concludes that the Connecticut litigation is parallel without undertaking the
analysis required for such a conclusion. See, e.g., ECF No. 16 at 3 (“When there is parallel
litigation in state court . . . .”). But Defendant argues elsewhere in its brief that the state court
litigation cannot end the parties’ dispute because “the Connecticut court does not have jurisdiction
over [Textron] so it cannot end the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 7. Plaintiffs’ reply addresses certain
factors but does not mention or address the requirement of parallel proceedings or the facts that
would supporting a finding of parallel proceedings. See generally ECF No. 17.
“Suits are parallel if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in
different forums.” Allen, 68 F.3d at 403. The court must “examine the state proceedings as they
actually exist to determine whether they are parallel to the federal proceedings[.]” Id. (emphasis
in original). The test for whether claims are substantial similar “is not whether all claims arise out
of the same event, general facts or subject matter” but rather, “when there is a substantial likelihood
that the state proceeding will fully dispose of the claims presented in the federal court.” Maestas
v. Seidel, No. 16-CV-00614 WJ/WPL, 2016 WL 8290797, at *2 (D.N.M. Sept. 6, 2016).
Because of the nature of the parties’ briefing, it is unclear whether the parties contend that
Johnson’s pending Connecticut state court case is the relevant parallel proceeding or whether they
contend that all of the pending state-court proceedings are parallel. As set out in the background
section, it is not clear on this record the identities of all of the plaintiffs and defendants in the
Connecticut state-court cases—including Johnson’s own Connecticut state-court case—or the
contours of any claims in those cases. In sum, the record lacks information from which the Court
could conclude that substantially the same parties are litigating substantially the same issues in
different forums and that there is a substantial likelihood that the Connecticut cases will resolve
all claims in this matter. Because of the failure to establish that the state and federal proceedings
are truly parallel, the Court will not address “whether extraordinary circumstances warrant
withholding the exercise of federal jurisdiction” in this case pursuant to the Colorado River factors.
Fox, 16 F.3d at 1082.
Plaintiffs’ Request for a General Stay
Because Plaintiffs did not move for a stay based on the Colorado River doctrine or establish
that they are entitled to a stay under this doctrine, the Court will address the bases for a stay that
Plaintiffs invoked in their Motion: (1) the first-to-file rule; and (2) arguably a general stay outside
of the context of a pending dispositive motion filed in this case.2 See also Kramer v. Textron
Aviation, Inc., No. 20-2341-HLT-GEB, 2021 WL 4902249, at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2021)
(applying the legal standard for a motion to stay outside of the context of a pending dispositive
motion in a case involving related litigation pending in state court). As discussed below, the firstto-file rule has no application here, and the factors typically evaluated for a general stay weigh
against granting a wholesale stay.
The First-to-File Rule
In their opening brief, Plaintiffs rely on Ed Tobergte Associates, Inc. v. Zide Sport Shop of
Ohio, Inc., 83 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Kan. 1999), for their assertion that “this action should be
stayed.” ECF No. 13 at 6. As explained in Ed Tobergate, “[t]he first-to-file rule provides that the
court where jurisdiction first attaches should make the determination of the appropriate venue to
decide the case, and the second court will decline to act until proceedings in the first court
terminate.” Id. at 692. The rule applies to federal courts, “as courts of coordinate jurisdiction and
equal rank, which must be careful not to interfere with each other’s affairs.” Buzas Baseball, Inc.
v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 189 F.3d 477 (10th Cir. 1999). “[T]he overwhelming
majority of cases have concluded that the federal first-to-file rule does not apply where the first-
The Court interprets Plaintiffs’ Motion as invoking a generalized stay based on
Plaintiffs’ motion and Plaintiffs’ comments during the scheduling conference, which centered
around convenience to the parties and the need to avoid duplicative or piecemeal discovery.
filed case is pending in state court.” Tinnin v. Sutter Valley Med. Found., 647 F. Supp. 3d 864,
871 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (collecting cases).
In their reply, Plaintiffs acknowledge that “the first-to-file rule only applies to federal
actions in competing jurisdictions.” ECF No. 17 at 1. While Plaintiffs assert that the first-to-file
rule is “permissive,” id., Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority that the rule should be invoked here,
where Plaintiffs first filed a case in federal court and then filed a second case in state court. To
the extent Plaintiffs claim the relevant first case is a case filed by other parties in Connecticut,
Plaintiffs additionally fail to provide any authority that the first-to-file rule should apply in that
context either. The Court therefore does not find a basis for a wholesale stay of this federal
litigation pursuant to the first-to-file rule.
General Stay of Discovery
The Court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control
its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Baca v. Berry, 806 F.3d
1262, 1269-70 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he district court has the power to stay proceedings pending
before it and to control its docket for the purpose of economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” (quotation omitted)). The Tenth Circuit is clear that “the right to
proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.” Commodity
Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983).
Outside of the context of a request to stay pending a decision on a dispositive motion filed
in the case at hand,3 judges in this District have considered five factors in determining whether to
This District employs a different framework when considering a stay pending a
ruling on a dispositive motion filed in the same case. See, e.g., Simmons v. Cline, No. 20-3096HLT-ADM, 2021 WL 1650270, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2021) (“A stay may be appropriate,
however, if (1) the case is likely to be finally concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts
sought through discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive motion; (3) discovery
grant a stay, including the “(1) non-movant’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the action
and the potential prejudice to the non-movant of a delay; (2) the burden on the movant if the stay
is denied; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the litigation;
and (5) the public interest.” CCA Recordings 2255 Litig. v. United States, No. 19-2491-JAR-JPO,
2021 WL 2104980, at *2 (D. Kan. May 25, 2021) (internal brackets omitted).
As discussed below, these factors weigh against granting a wholesale stay.
Defendant’s Interests in Proceeding Expeditiously and Potential
Prejudice of a Delay
Defendant argues that staying this case “would cause delayed and protracted disposition of
disputes and allow relevant evidence to go stale, causing increased expense and delay to the parties
and the court[.]” ECF No. 16 at 2. According to Defendant, a stay heightens the risk that
witnesses’ memories would fade, they could relocate, or documents could become misplaced or
destroyed. Id. at 5. Defendant argues that this case should move forward because it wishes to
resolve Plaintiffs’ claims and to vindicate its product. Id. at 2.
These articulated prejudices are only exacerbated by the potential length of the stay
Plaintiffs seek. At the time of the briefing on this Motion, Textron had yet to file motions to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in all of the pending Connecticut cases, including in the
Johnson Connecticut case. Moreover, as the parties stated during the scheduling conference, even
in the cases in which Textron had moved to dismiss, the parties anticipate months of jurisdictional
on all issues posed by the complaint would be wasteful and burdensome; or (4) the dispositive
motion raises issues as to a defendant’s immunity from suit.”). In their Motion, Plaintiffs do not
brief these factors or otherwise suggest that this standard would apply here, where a dispositive
motion, filed in a related state case, is anticipated. Because of this, the Court applies the standard
set out above.
discovery, followed by briefing. In total, Plaintiffs anticipated that the process could take more
than a year, if not longer.
A delay of up to a year is far too long for a wholesale stay of this case. See Kramer, 2021
WL 4902249, at *4 (concluding this factor weighed against a stay based on similar arguments and
noting that “[a]llowing time to pass without discovery only increases the potential burden to not
only defendants, but to all parties. Any discovery which proceeds on the merits of the claims will
occur in whichever forum this case proceeds, between the same parties named in both courts, and
will therefore not be wasteful”). This factor weighs against a wholesale stay.
Burden on Plaintiffs if a Stay is Denied
As the party requesting the stay, Plaintiffs bear the burden to articulate a hardship that
would occur were this case to move forward. Kruse v. Gerdisch, No. 23-1153-TC-RES, 2023 WL
6880136, at *2 (D. Kan. Oct. 18, 2023) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936)).
Despite requesting a wholesale stay of discovery, Plaintiffs’ opening Motion is devoid of any
concrete examples of how it would be harmed if this case—which Plaintiffs intentionally filed first
in this District— moved forward. In reply, Plaintiffs provide the example of duplicative discovery
in that Plaintiffs could be forced to depose Defendant in this case and potentially in the Connecticut
case, resulting in Plaintiffs paying for two depositions of the same witness. ECF No. 17 at 3-4.
Although the Court acknowledges this concern, this potential prejudice stems from Plaintiffs’
decision to file two related cases in different jurisdictions. The prospect of duplicative discovery
In their reply, Plaintiffs “acknowledge written discovery should proceed,” and they propose
a more limited stay of this litigation. Id. at 3. Ultimately, while the Court finds that Plaintiffs
could suffer some burden if wholesale discovery were to proceed, staging discovery with tailored
deadlines, as discussed in Subsection C below, can materially address any burden on Plaintiffs.
The Court’s Convenience
No party addresses this factor. Nevertheless, “[t]he court has an interest in judicial
efficiency in terms of managing its caseload.” Stohr v. Scharer, No. 17-1018-JWB, 2018 WL
2427427, at *3 (D. Kan. May 30, 2018). The Court does not find that a wholesale stay will save
the Court time, effort, or resources as this case will continue to be litigated in either this District
or elsewhere. While the Court will not speculate as to the outcome of the jurisdictional issues in
Connecticut, the Court finds that a wholesale stay here may “only postpone the court’s work,
thereby frustrating the court’s strong interest in moving its docket.” Spears, 2012 WL 12837278,
at *3 (citation omitted). The Court therefore finds that this factor weighs against a wholesale stay.
Interests of Non-Parties
Plaintiffs argue that if this case moves forward, it could prejudice other plaintiffs who may
ultimately end up litigating their cases in the District of Kansas, but they provide no concrete
examples. ECF No. 13 at 5-6. Any potential prejudice to the parties to the Connecticut cases can
be addressed by delaying certain discovery in this case, as explained below.
coordination between the parties in this case and in Connecticut could address any such concerns.
Because of these possible solutions, this factor weighs against a wholesale stay.
No party has identified any public interest, but “the public has a general interest in prompt
resolution of claims.” Spears, 2012 WL 12837278, at *3; Kramer, 2021 WL 4902249, at *4
(recognizing that other courts and judges in this District have recognized that “the public has a
general interest in the prompt resolution of claims.” (citation omitted)). This factor is neutral or
weighs against a wholesale stay.
Narrowed Discovery and Adjustments to Other Case Management Deadlines
The above factors weigh against granting Plaintiffs’ request for a wholesale stay of this
litigation, and so the Motion is denied. That said, the Court has wide latitude to fashion appropriate
deadlines and to control the course and scope of discovery for efficient case management. See,
e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (defining the scope of discovery “[u]nless otherwise limited by court
order”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A) (explaining that the court may alter the limits in these rules on
the number of depositions and interrogatories or on the length of depositions); Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C) (authorizing the court to limit the frequency or extent of certain discovery under
certain circumstances); see also Kruse, 2023 WL 6880136 at *5 (denying a motion to stay but
exercising the court’s discretion to narrow the scope of discovery while a motion to transfer
remained pending); Kramer, 2021 WL 4902249, at *4 (denying a motion to stay discovery and
explaining that the case would “proceed with scheduling and discovery, however slowly it may be
necessary to accommodate any changes in the [state court action]”). As Defendant notes, this
Court has in other cases recognized the efficiencies to be gained by allowing limited discovery to
go forward when a case will proceed in one of two forums and the discovery would be needed in
Although Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks a wholesale stay of the litigation and Defendant believes
all aspects of the case should proceed, ultimately both sides acknowledge that some discovery
See, e.g., Kruse, 2023 WL 6880136, at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 18, 2023) (finding that
limited discovery should be allowed pending a decision on a motion to transfer because “regardless
of whether this case is transferred, such discovery can be used in this Court or in Indiana, and the
discovery may be relevant to either an Indiana or Kansas medical malpractice screening panel”).
taken now could be useful in either forum. ECF No. 16 at 5 (Defendant arguing that “at least the
written discovery in Kansas can be used in Connecticut.”); ECF No. 17 at 3-4 (Plaintiffs
acknowledging that limited discovery could go forward). As relayed during the scheduling
conference, the Court recognizes certain efficiencies to be gained by staging case-management
deadlines in a manner that avoids duplicative or otherwise inefficient discovery.
To that end, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding proposed scheduling
order deadlines and agreements for narrowed discovery to go forward in this District. On or before
December 1, 2023, the parties shall submit to the Magistrate Judge’s chambers a revised proposed
scheduling order and a redline version showing all changes to the form scheduling order. At a
minimum, the proposed scheduling order must contain jointly proposed deadlines for at least the
following events: 1) submission of a proposed protective order; 2) exchange of documents
identified in each party’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures; 3) Plaintiffs’ settlement
proposal; and 4) Defendant’s settlement counter-proposal. The Court additionally orders the
parties to propose reasonable limitations on written discovery and to discuss whether any nonparty discovery is needed at this time. The Court also orders the parties to discuss Plaintiffs’
proposal that “their individual depositions may be taken” and to discuss whether any additional
depositions should proceed. Finally, the parties must discuss the feasibility of any expert discovery
at this time. Absent an agreement between the parties, the Court is unlikely to order expert
discovery outside of expert testimony related to Plaintiffs’ economic and personal injuries.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay (ECF No. 12) is
DENIED. The parties shall submit a revised proposed scheduling order as directed above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2023, at Topeka, Kansas.
/s/ Rachel E. Schwartz
Rachel E. Schwartz
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?