Kennon v. Ashley et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANTHONY LEE KENNON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 24-4034-JWB
DANIEL ASHLEY, JOSHUA DONCOUSE,
AUSTIN SPENCER, and CHARLES SMYSER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order
on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 	(Docs. 34, 55.) 	The motion is fully briefed and ripe for
decision. 	(Docs. 55, 62, 63.) 	The court previously took the motion under advisement while
Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the court’s show cause order. (Doc. 64.) That response having
now been filed, the court is prepared to rule on Plaintiff’s motion. 	(Doc. 65.) 	The motion is
DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, as detailed in the court’s prior order, unfortunately
contains many misleading representations about deposition testimony submitted in support of
Plaintiff’s motion. In Plaintiff’s counsel’s response to this court’s order to show cause, counsel
accepted responsibility for the errors and asked this court to consider the motion on its merits. The
court will not do so. The motion is denied in light of the misleading representations.
The court appreciates Plaintiff’s candor in accepting responsibility for the errors.
However, Plaintiff’s assertion that the errors could have been avoided if they had been
characterized as summaries rather than quotes is unhelpful. 	As the court explained in its prior
Case 5:24-cv-04034-JWB-BGS Document 66 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 2

2
order, many of the issues are not merely incorrect quotations but citations to parts of the deposition
testimony that are unsupportive of what is “summarized” in Plaintiff’s motion. The court will not
go beyond the citations and comb through pages of deposition testimony to sift out which
contentions in Plaintiff’s motion are supported. The incorrect representations are so intertwined
with the motion that they cannot be untangled.
Additionally, while the court understands and sympathizes with counsel’s explanation that
he was suffering medical problems at the time of these filings, this cannot excuse the errors. In
their response, Defendants pointed out serious problems with some of counsel’s representations in
his motion. 	Counsel did not correct the errors in his reply brief. 	Instead, he insisted that
Defendants’ complaints were “semantic.” (Doc. 63 at 4.) The court does not agree.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and his related motion for
leave to file Axon Videos of Ashley and Spencer conventionally (Docs. 55, 56) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 18th day of March, 2026.
s/ John W. Broomes
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-04034-JWB-BGS Document 66 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 2