Norman v. Town & Country Heating and Air Conditioning Company, LLC et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 23 Motion to Strike. Plaintiff may refile his Response to the Motion for Protective Order in compliance with D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(1) within two (2) days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 03/10/2025. (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DOUGLAS NORMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN AND COUNTRY HEATING
AND AIR CONDITIONING
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:24-cv-02537-KHV-TJJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike (ECF No. 23).
Defendants move pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(1), to strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
Motion for Protective Order for exceeding the page limit. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion
arguing the response is within the proper page limit, as the motion is not a “discovery motion,”
and the page limit is therefore governed by D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(3). Upon consideration of the
matter, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion.
I.

Background
On February 21, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 20).

Defendants’ motion states the parties agree to the need for a Protective Order, but do not agree on
the terms of the Protective Order.1 Defendants’ motion is four pages in length. On March 4,
2025, Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 22),
opposing Defendants’ proposed protective order.2 Plaintiff’s response is fourteen pages in length.

1
2

See Defs.’ Mot. for Protective Order (ECF No. 20).
See Pl.’s Response to Defs.’ Mot. for Protective Order (ECF. No. 22).

Defendants then filed the current Motion to Strike on March 5, 2025, arguing Plaintiff’s
response violates the page limit set forth in D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(1).3 Plaintiff’s response to the
Motion to Strike, filed on March 6, 2025, argues the Motion for Protective Order should not be
considered a “discovery motion,” but rather an “other motion,” and governed by the page limit
requirement set forth in D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(3).4
II.

Legal Standards
D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d) governs page limits applicable to briefs on motions. The Rule

contains four subparts and sets different page limits for different types of motions. Relevant here,
D. Kan Rule 7.1(d)(1) pertains to “Discovery-related motions,” and limits principal briefs in
support of, or in response to, discovery-related motions to no more than 10 pages and replies to no
more than 3 pages. “All other motions,”—meaning all motions other than discovery-related
motions, summary judgment motions, and class certification motions5—are governed by D. Kan.
Rule 7.1(d)(3) which limits principal briefs in support of, or in response to, all other motions to no
more than 15 pages and replies to no more than 5 pages. “The page limit is primarily intended to
preclude burdening or delaying the work of the court and is not for the convenience of the parties.
Judicial economy and concise argument are purposes of the page limit.”6
At issue here is whether the Motion for Protective Order is properly categorized as a
“discovery-related motion” or falls under the umbrella of “all other motions.” What constitutes a
discovery-related motion is not defined in the local rules. The rules concerning protective orders

Defs.’ Joint Mot. to Strike (ECF No. 23).
Pl,’s Suggestions in Opposition to Defs.’ Mot. to Strike Pl.’s Response (ECF No. 24).
5
Page limits for motions for summary judgment and class certification are dictated by D. Kan.
Rule 7.1(d)(2).
6
Rhoten v. Dickson, No. 04-4160-SAC, 2006 WL 2414057, at *1 (D. Kan. July 25, 2006)
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
2
3
4

are contained in Federal Rule of Procedure 26, which governs discovery generally. The first
sentence of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) states: “A party or any person from whom
discovery is sought may move for a protective order . . . .” Rule 26(c) expressly protects a party
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, upon a finding of good
cause, by outright forbidding discovery or imposing limitations or conditions on discovery as set
out in Rule 26(c)(1)(A)–(H). Clearly, a motion for protective order is a “discovery-related
motion” under D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(3).7
Because a Motion for Protective Order is a discovery-related motion, it is subject to the
page limits set forth in D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff’s fourteen-page response to
the Motion to Strike is well beyond the ten-page limit allowed by D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(1). The
Court finds that in the interest of judicial economy and concise argument8 it is necessary to strike
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order. The Court, however, will allow
Plaintiff to refile their response to the Motion for Protective Order, complying with D. Kan. Rule
7.1(d)(1), within two (2) days of this Order.

In accordance with D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(4),

Defendants’ reply will be due seven (7) days later.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike (ECF No. 23) is
GRANTED.

7

See CST Indus., Inc. v. Tank Connection LLC, et al., No. 23-2339-JAR-RES, 2025 WL
660890, at *9 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2025) (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) for violation of a discoveryrelated order, the Court found it had authority to exercise its discretion in determining whether to
impose sanctions for violation of a stipulated protective order); Angelton v. Coffeyville Res.
Refin., No. 08-1255-EFM, 2010 WL 2362262, at *1 (D. Kan. June 10, 2010) (motion for
protective order concerned discovery related to issues in the case).
8
See Rhoten v. Dickson, No. 04-4160-SAC, 2006 WL 2414057, at *1 (D. Kan. July 25, 2006).
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to do so, Plaintiff may refile his
Response to the Motion for Protective Order in compliance with D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(1) within
two (2) days of this Order.
Dated this March 10, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.

Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge

4