Dehn v. Board of Regents for Kansas Colleges and Universities, State of Kansas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
EMILY DEHN,
Plaintiff/Counter
Defendant,
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS FOR KANSAS
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES,
STATE OF KANSAS ex rel. UNIVERSITY
OF KANSAS,
Defendant/Counter
Claimant.
Case No. 24-2079-DDC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Defendant Board of Regents for Kansas Colleges and Universities ex rel. University of
Kansas has filed two separate summary judgment motions. Doc. 104; Doc. 108. One of these
asks for summary judgment against plaintiff’s claims. Doc. 104. The other asks for summary
judgment in defendant’s favor on its Counterclaim. Doc. 108. The problem with this approach?
“A party should ordinarily submit only one motion for summary judgment which contains all
arguments and evidence in support of a judgment in favor of the moving party, so as to avoid a
piece-meal approach to a multiple claim suit.” Cole v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp., Inc.,
No. 12–2404–SAC, 2013 WL 1446556, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2013). Our court’s Summary
Judgment Guidelines codify this norm: “Absent a court order granting permission to do so,
Case 2:24-cv-02079-DDC Document 113 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
separate or multiple motions for summary judgment should not be filed to avoid compliance with
D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(2).”1
This guidance makes good sense. As our court has observed, “filing summary judgment
motions seriatim on one’s own initiative not only makes ‘the court’s task of shuffling paperwork
more complex[.]’” Cole, 2013 WL 1446556, at *1 (quoting Lewis v. Glickman, No. 98-4154-
SAC, 2000 WL 1863407, at *3 n.3 (D. Kan. Nov. 1, 2000)). The practice “also permits ‘any
number of permutations of the page-limitation rule[.]’” Id. (quoting Lewis, 2000 WL 1863407,
at *3 n.3). Our court has animated this conclusion several times recently. E.g., United States ex
rel. Schroeder v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 17-2060-DDC-BGS, 2024 WL 3567297, at *1 (D. Kan.
Mar. 26, 2024) (granting motion to strike second summary judgment motion); Hernandez v.
Pemmark Transp., Inc., No. 24-cv-01158-TC, 2025 WL 2443448, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 15, 2025)
(“[M]ultiple summary judgment motions filed throughout the course of litigation are generally
disfavored.”).
Here, the court detects no reason why this case—a relatively straightforward one with
few claims and a single claim comprising the Counterclaim—should require 70 pages of
summary-judgment briefing. More complicated cases have sufficed with less. Given this
history, the court orders defendant to show cause in writing within 14 days of this Order why the
court shouldn’t strike Doc. 104 and Doc. 108. Alternatively, defendant may file a single, rule-
compliant summary judgment motion or seek leave to depart from that rule within 14 days of this
Order. In light of this Order, the court stays plaintiff’s response deadlines for defendant’s two
summary judgment motions until further court order or until defendant files a rule-compliant
brief.
1 	The court makes its Summary Judgment Guidelines publicly available at:
https://ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Summary-Judgment-Guidelines%202023.pdf
Case 2:24-cv-02079-DDC Document 113 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant show cause in
writing within 14 days of this Order why the court shouldn’t strike Doc. 104 and Doc. 108.
Alternatively, defendant may file a single, rule-compliant motion for summary judgment or seek
leave to depart from that rule within 14 days of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT response deadlines for Doc. 104 and Doc. 108 are
stayed pending further court order or until defendant files a single, rule-compliant summary
judgment motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-02079-DDC Document 113 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3