Professional Documents
Culture Documents
b. On January 20, 2015, Defendants Jordan, Kaspar, and Michael filed a Motion to
Dismiss the claims related to the recognition of same-sex marriages that Plaintiffs
asserted in the First Amended Complaint. See Doc. 79. Plaintiffs response to that
motion to dismiss is due to be filed on or before February 13, 2015.
3. Discovery and Further Scheduling: The parties disagree on the need for discovery
and on the timing of further proceedings in this case. Thus, the parties set forth separate proposals regarding discovery and further scheduling:
a. Plaintiffs:
i. Discovery: Plaintiffs do not believe that any discovery in this case is necessary because the relevant and material facts are generally not in dispute and
are largely if not exclusively within the control of Defendants. If the
Court allows limited discovery, Plaintiffs ask that the Court require Defendants to make a specific showing of the subjects of discovery and the need for
such discovery.
ii. Dispositive Motions: Plaintiffs continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Defendants refusal to recognize same-sex marriages for various purposes, and Plaintiffs seek an expeditious ruling on their claims. Thus, Plaintiffs will soon file a motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs
suggest that response and reply briefs to that motion be filed in accordance
with the time limits set forth in D. Kan. R. 6.1(d).
b. Defendants:
i. Discovery:
1. Defendants believe that the following discovery is necessary: