Opinion
Civil Action 19-1343-KHV 20-1067-KHV
09-19-2023
BLAINE FRANKLIN SHAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ERIK SMITH, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol, et al., Defendants. MARK ERICH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ERIK SMITH, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On April 24, 2023, plaintiffs filed a Motion To Strike Defendant Jones' Untimely Objections And Counter Designations (Doc. #488 in Case No. 19-1343 and Doc. #57 in Case No. 20-1067). On September 11, 2023, in light of the Court's rulings at trial and subsequent orders, the Court directed plaintiffs to show good cause in writing why the Court should not overrule their motion to strike as moot. Order To Show Cause (Doc. #555 in Case No. 19-1343 and Doc. #101 in Case No. 20-1067). This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Response To Court's Order To Show Cause Why The Court Should Not Overrule Plaintiffs' Motion To Strike Untimely Deposition Designations (Doc. #558 in Case No. 19-1343 and Doc. #104 in Case No. 20-1067) filed September 18, 2023.
Plaintiffs insist that the Court should strike defendant's objections and counter-designations as untimely. In doing so, they do not directly respond to the Court's directive that they show cause why their objections should not be overruled “as moot.” Order To Show Cause (Doc. #555 in Case No. 19-1343 and Doc. #101 in Case No. 20-1067) at 1. In light of the Court's rulings at trial and subsequent orders, the Court finds that plaintiffs' motion to strike is moot. In addition, plaintiffs' motion lacks substantive merit. Plaintiffs do not assert that they suffered prejudice from defendant's untimely objections and counter-designations. Courts prefer to decide cases on their merits rather than on technicalities. See Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp., 691 F.2d 449, 456 (10th Cir. 1982). This policy applies with even greater force to cases with substantial public interest and where the objecting parties fail to show that they suffered prejudice from the opposing party's failure to strictly comply with the rules. The Court therefore overrules plaintiffs' motion to strike.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion To Strike Defendant Jones' Untimely Objections And Counter Designations (Doc. #488 in Case No. 19-1343 and Doc. #57 in Case No. 20-1067) filed April 24, 2023 is OVERRULED.