Kastner v. Intrust Bank et al

Filing 197

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 181 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; denying 186 Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Sur-Reply; denying 187 Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Sur-reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 1/25/2013. (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 plaintiff’s motions to compel (Doc. 181) and to file
sur-replies (Doc. 186 & 187). For the reasons set forth below, the motions shall be DENIED.

Motions to File Sur-replies (Doc. 186 & 187)
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel (Doc. 181) on December 4, 2012 and defendants
filed their response (Doc. 183) on December 16. Rather than file a reply brief addressing
defendants’ response, plaintiff moves for leave to file sur-replies. In the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas, a party opposing a motion files a “response” brief
and the moving party may then file and serve a written “reply” brief. D. Kan. Rule 7.1(c).
Because plaintiff is the moving party in this instance, he may timely file a reply brief under

Rule 7.1(c) without seeking court permission.1 Under the circumstances, plaintiff’s motions
for leave to file sur-replies are inappropriate and summarily denied. The court construes
Docs. 186 and 187 as plaintiff’s reply and has considered his arguments in ruling on the
motion to compel.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 181)
Plaintiff moves to compel defendants to produce documents responsive to Production
Requests No. 3 and 4. Request No. 3 asks defendants to produce “documents showing the
title which were [sic] part of the J. Brooks estate and/or trust to the two pieces of property
or the sale value of that property.” Defendants respond that the Trust has not held any real
property during the period of time relevant to the claims in this case (2001 to the present);
therefore it has no relevant documents to produce. Defendant also contends that any
documents concerning trust assets prior to 2000 are irrelevant to the claims in this case.
In an earlier ruling in this case the court denied plaintiff’s request to compel the
production of trust statements for the years 1996-2000 because plaintiff had not shown the
relevance of such documents. Memorandum and Order, Doc. 139. Plaintiff has similarly not
shown the relevance of documents concerning titles to real estate before 2000. Because
defendants have no documents responsive to Production Request No. 3 during the relevant
period of time, the motion to compel Request No. 3 is denied.
1

A “reply” must be filed and served within 14 days of service of the response. D.
Kan. Rule 6.1(d).
-2-

Production Request No. 4 requests “the board meeting minutes or other documents
which show the results of audits of the J. Brooks trust account, i.e., documents which comply
with 12 C.F.R. 9.9 for the J. Brooks trust.” Defendants assert that the bank is in compliance
with the referenced regulation but that there are no documents responsive to the request.
Plaintiff counters that defendants’ representation is false and that there “must be” documents
responsive to the request.
Plaintiff’s arguments that defendants provided an untrue or “false” answer to the
production request are not persuasive. Because defendants represent that there are no
documents responsive to the request, the motion to compel Production Request No. 4 is
denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 181) and
motions for leave to file sur-replies (Doc. 186 & 187) are 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).
-3-

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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 25th day of January 2013.

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

-4-