Kastner v. Intrust Bank et al

Filing 190

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 189 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 1/7/2013. (sj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KRISTOFER THOMAS KASTNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTRUST BANK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-1012-EFM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to amend the scheduling order
to extend the deadline for the filing of any dispositive motions. (Doc. 189). Specifically,
defendants ask that the deadline be extended 30 days following a ruling on defendants’
motion to strike.1 As explained in greater detail below, the motion shall be DENIED.2
Plaintiff filed this case on January 13, 2010 and proceeds pro se. After the passage
of 18 months and rulings on more than 30 motions, a scheduling order was entered on June
26, 2012 establishing a January 11, 2013 deadline for the filing of any dispositive motions.
(Doc. 145). Defendants now seek an extension of their dispositive motion deadline, arguing

1

Defense counsel advised the court’s staff that plaintiff opposes the motion.
2

The nature and background of this litigation has been described in prior opinions
and will not be repeated. See, e.g., Memorandum and Order, Doc. 152.

that their pending motion to strike four of plaintiff’s designated experts should be ruled on
before the filing of any dispositive motions. In essence, defendants are suggesting a
piecemeal approach requiring evidentiary rulings before any dispositive motions are filed.
The court is not persuaded that the motion for an extension of time is warranted given the
lengthy and protracted history of this case. Rather, defendants shall file any dispositive
motions by the January 11, 2013 deadline and the motion to strike, if relevant, will be
considered in conjunction with the dispositive motions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for an extension of time
(Doc. 189) is DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration of this order under D. Kan. Rule 7.3 is not encouraged.
The standards governing motions to reconsider are well established. A motion to reconsider
is appropriate where the court has obviously misapprehended a party’s position or the facts
or applicable law, or where the party produces new evidence that could not have been
obtained through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Revisiting the issues already
addressed is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider and advancing new arguments or
supporting facts which were otherwise available for presentation when the original motion
was briefed or argued is inappropriate. Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1172 (D. Kan. 1992).
Any such motion shall not exceed three pages and shall strictly comply with the standards
enunciated by the court in Comeau v. Rupp. The response to any motion for reconsideration
shall not exceed three pages. No reply shall be filed.
-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 7th day of January 2013.

S/ Karen M. Humphreys
_______________________
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-