Gardiner (ID 46842) v. McBride et al

Filing 143

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Submit Memorandum Over 30 Pages 132 is granted. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion and Opposing Plaintiff' ;s Motion to Exceed Page Restrictions 134 is denied. Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment 142 is granted. Defendants must submit their Reply in Support of their Motion for Sum mary Judgment on or before August 16, 2019. The court vacates the current trial setting and resets the matter of trial on March 3, 2020. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 08/07/19. Mailed to pro se party Matthew T. Gardiner by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MATTHEW T. GARDINER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-3151-DDC-JPO
v.
BILL MCBRYDE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on several motions: (1) plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to Submit Memorandum Over 30 Pages (Doc. 132); (2) defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion and Opposing Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed
Page Restrictions (Doc. 134); and (3) defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in
Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 142).
The court addresses each motion in turn.
I.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Submit Memorandum Over
30 Pages (Doc. 132)

On June 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Submit Memorandum Over 30
Pages. Doc. 132. Plaintiff’s Motion asks the court to grant him leave to file a Response to
defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment that exceeds the court’s 30-page limit for the
arguments and authorities section of briefs or memoranda. D. Kan. Rule 7.1(e). Plaintiff
currently is incarcerated. He asserts that he requires the additional pages because he is
proceeding pro se and must write his Response by hand. Also on June 20, 2019, plaintiff filed

his Response to defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 133. His Response is 123
pages, and the Arguments and Authorities section of the Response spans about 60 pages.
After reviewing plaintiff’s Response, the court grants him leave to file the Response
exceeding the court’s 30-page limit for the Argument and Authorities section. The court is
mindful of plaintiff’s pro se status and the limitations placed on plaintiff’s ability to prepare a
typed brief because of his current incarceration. Plaintiff has prepared a handwritten Response
that includes an Arguments and Authorities section that is about twice as long as what our local
rules allow. But he has written his Response in a legible fashion, which likely required more
pages than a typed version of his Response would span. The court thus grants plaintiff leave to
file his Response exceeding the page limitation. The court will consider plaintiff’s Response
(Doc. 133) as filed.
II.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Summary
Judgment Motion and Opposing Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page
Restrictions (Doc. 134)

After plaintiff filed his Response to defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
defendants filed a Motion to Strike plaintiff’s filing. Doc. 134. Defendants argue that the court
should strike plaintiff’s Response because it violates D. Kan. Rule 7.1(e) and the Pretrial Order
by exceeding the 30-page limit. For the reasons explained above, the court denies defendants’
Motion to Strike plaintiff’s Response because it exceeds the page limits. Plaintiff has sought the
court’s leave to file the Response exceeding the page limits, and the court has granted his request
to do so.
Defendants also ask the court to strike plaintiff’s Response because, they contend, it
violates D. Kan. Rule 56.1(b) by failing to provide a “concise” statement of “material” facts.
The court refuses to strike plaintiff’s Response based on defendants’ assertion that plaintiff has

2

failed to present certain facts “concisely” or that certain facts are not material to the summary
judgment motion. Defendants can raise these arguments when replying to plaintiff’s Response,
but the court will not strike plaintiff’s filing for this reason.
III.

Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of their
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 142)

Finally, defendants have filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of
their Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 142. Defendants ask the court for a two-week
extension of time to file their Reply. Also, defendants assert that the court should not require
them to submit a Reply until the court decides their pending Motion to Strike. The court now
has denied defendants’ Motion to Strike. And it grants defendants’ request for an extension of
time to submit their Reply. Defendants must submit their Reply on or before August 16, 2019.
IV.

Trial Setting

When filing the summary judgment briefing, both parties have sought and secured
several extensions of time to file their briefs. These extensions likely will prevent the court from
deciding the pending summary judgment motion at least 60 days before trial. See Pretrial Order
(Doc. 120 at 21) (“The court will attempt to decide any timely filed dispositive motions
approximately 60 days before trial.”). The court thus vacates the current trial setting. And the
court resets the matter for trial on March 3, 2020.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Submit Memorandum Over 30 Pages (Doc. 132) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response
to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion and Opposing Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page
Restrictions (Doc. 134) is denied.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File
Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 142) is granted. Defendants
must submit their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment on or before August
16, 2019.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the court vacates the current trial setting and
resets the matter of trial on March 3, 2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of August 2019, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

4