Cochran v. Wichita, City of et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 54 Motion to Strike ; denying 57 Motion to Strike ; denying 60 Motion to Strike ; denying 61 Motion to Strike. Please see order for details. Signed by District Judge John W. Broomes on 10/31/2018. (aa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MICHAEL T. COCHRAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-1007-JWB

CITY OF WICHITA, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motions to strike various filings by
Defendants (Docs. 54, 57, 60, 61.) The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for
decision. (Docs. 59, 62.) Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED for the reasons herein.
Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ filings for various reasons, asserting that
Defendants have pled insufficient defenses in the motions to dismiss and that Defendants have
exceeded the page limitations in this court’s standing order. With respect to Plaintiff’s argument
that Defendants’ have stated an insufficient or improper defense, the court will determine the
merits of Defendants’ defenses when the court rules on the pending motions to dismiss. Plaintiff
also states that he has been prejudiced as he attempted to comply with this court’s standing order
by restricting his single response brief to both motions to less than 20 pages and has not been
able to address all of Defendants’ arguments. (Doc. 61 at 2.)
This court’s standing order on page limitations limits memoranda in support of motions
to dismiss to 30 pages. See http://ksd.uscourts.gov/index.php/guideline-order/standing-order-onpage-limitations. The page limitation does not include exhibits, such as an affidavit. Also,

-1-

parties should not seek to evade the page limit rule by filing multiple motions for different and
discrete claims. Id. Plaintiff appears to interpret the two pending motions to dismiss as an
attempt to evade the page limitations. (See Docs. 58, 61.)

There are two pending motions to

dismiss: a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Troy Livingston (Doc. 49) and a motion to
dismiss filed by the remaining Defendants (Doc. 51). The page limitation order does not prevent
multiple defendants from filing separate motions to dismiss. Nor does it prevent a defendant
from attaching an affidavit as an exhibit. The memoranda filed in support of the pending
motions comply with this court’s standing order. Under the order, Plaintiff could file two
responses that do not exceed 30 pages.
Plaintiff’s initial response was 18 pages and Plaintiff spent more than half of his response
brief discussing this court’s page limitations. Because Plaintiff has indicated that he believed he
could not exceed 20 pages and was unable to address all of Defendants’ arguments, the court will
allow Plaintiff, should he so choose, to file amended response briefs. Plaintiff may file two
separate responses addressing the pending motions to dismiss (Docs. 49, 51) that do not exceed
30 pages, for a total page limit of 60 pages. Plaintiff’s amended responses are due within 30
days of this order. Defendants may file a reply brief within 14 days of Plaintiff’s amended
responses. Should Plaintiff choose to file amended responses, his current response brief (Doc.
58) will not be considered by the court and any arguments Plaintiff may have raised on the
merits in his initial response must be included in the amended responses if Plaintiff would like
the court to consider such arguments. If Plaintiff does not file amended responses, the motions to
dismiss will be ripe and ready for ruling.

-2-

Plaintiff’s motions to strike are DENIED (Docs. 54, 57, 60, 61) for the reasons herein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2018, at Wichita, Kansas.
_s/ John W. Broomes_______________
JOHN W. BROOMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-