Brown v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KALIECE D. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HOSPITAL
AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-CV-2030-TC-TJJ
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICES
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	to 	Strike 	Plaintiff’s 	Notices 	of
Supplemental Evidence and Supplementation of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (ECF No. 64)
(“Motion to Strike”). Defendant requests the Court strike pro se Plaintiff’s Supplementation of
Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (ECF No. 56) and three Notices of Supplemental Evidence (ECF
Nos. 57–59) and exclude the use of these filings. Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 66) and
Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 68). This order memorializes the Court’s oral ruling on the
motion, as stated on the record at the December 19, 2025 pretrial conference.
After reviewing the briefing and the documents that Defendant seeks to strike, the Court
finds Plaintiff’s Supplementation of her Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (ECF No. 56) and
Notices of Supplemental Evidence (ECF Nos. 57–59) were filed in violation of the Court’s local
rule. Under District of Kansas Local Rule 26.3(a), disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1), discovery requests, and responses thereto must be served upon the other party, “but not
Case 2:25-cv-02030-TC Document 71 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 3

2
filed with the clerk.”1 The filing of these notices and attached documents in the public record is
especially concerning here because Defendant claims the filings include confidential documents
entitled to protections under the Protective Order (ECF No. 24) in this case. The Court therefore
grants Defendant’s Motion to Strike. Plaintiff’s Supplementation of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial
Disclosures (ECF No. 56) and Notices of Supplemental Evidence” (ECF Nos. 57–59) are hereby
stricken from the record.
The Court’s order striking these filings from the public record does not resolve the question
of whether the supplemental documents and exhibits in Plaintiff’s stricken filings will be or could
be admissible at trial. That is a question for the District Judge to decide.
The Court also finds to the extent Plaintiff intended these notices to be a supplementation
of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, they were untimely. Even presuming the Second
Amended Scheduling Order discovery deadline applied, 2 at the latest the supplementation
deadline was October 20, 2025. Yet Plaintiff did not file her supplementation until November 7,
2025, well after the deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notices
of Supplemental Evidence and Supplementation of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (ECF No. 64)
is granted. The Clerk is directed to strike Plaintiff’s Supplementation of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial
1 D. Kan. Rule 26.3(a). Instead, the party serving the disclosures, discovery requests or responses
must file a certificate of service stating the type of disclosure or discovery or response served, the date and
type of service, and the party served. D. Kan. Rule 26.3(b) (emphasis added).
2 The original and Amended Scheduling Orders set the parties’ deadline for supplementation of
their initial disclosures as “40 days before the deadline to complete all discovery.” ECF Nos. 18 and 46.
The Second Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 62) extended the discovery deadline to November 28,
2025.
Case 2:25-cv-02030-TC Document 71 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Disclosures (ECF No. 56) and three Notices of Supplemental Evidence (ECF Nos. 57–59) from
the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 19, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02030-TC Document 71 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 3