Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 105 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KAIL MARIE, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUSAN MOSIER, M.D., in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-2518

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANT COURT

CLERKS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants Hamilton and Lumbreras (Defendant Court Clerks) have moved the Court
(Doc. 94) for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs summary judgment motion (Doc. 85).
Plaintiffs oppose Defendant Court Clerks motion for an extension of time.
Because Defendant Court Clerks have referred to their Motion for Stay (Doc. 94 & 95),
Plaintiffs also incorporate by reference Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion
for Stay (Doc. 104).1 And because Defendant Court Clerks also incorporate by reference the
arguments made by Defendants Mosier, Kaspar, Jordan, and Michael (the Recognition
Defendants) in support of their motion for an extension under Rule 56(d) (Doc. 93, 99),
Plaintiffs also incorporate by reference their Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for
Extension (Doc. 98).

In their Motion for Extension of Time, Defendant Court Clerks repeatedly note that Plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment seeks a second preliminary injunction against defendants
Hamilton and Lumbreras (Doc. 85). Doc. 103, p. 2. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
contains a typographical error. The reference to preliminary injunction should read
permanent injunction, and that is exactly what the Plaintiffs asked for in the Memorandum in
Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. See Doc. 86, pp. 14 & 18-21.

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 105 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 3

The motion for extension of time filed by Defendant Court Clerks should be denied for
all the same reasons that the motion for extension of time by Recognition Defendants should be
denied. Like the motion filed by the Recognition Defendants, the motion filed by Defendant
Court Clerks does not comply with any of the procedural or substantive requirements of Rule
56(d). Moreover, the material facts underlying Plaintiffs marriage license claims against the
Defendant Court Clerks are undisputed or admitted so that there are no material facts in dispute.
Granting the present motion would unnecessarily continue the irreparable harm Plaintiffs are
suffering as a result of Defendants violation of their constitutional rights.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that the Court deny Defendant Court Clerks
motion for an extension of time regarding summary judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen Douglas Bonney
Stephen Douglas Bonney, KS Bar #12322
ACLU Foundation of Kansas
3601 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Tel.: (816) 994-3311; Fax: (816) 756-0136
email: dbonney@aclukansas.org
Mark P. Johnson, KS Bar #22289
Samantha J. Wenger, KS Bar #25322
Dentons US LLP
4520 Main Street, Suite 1100
Kansas City, MO 64111
Tel. : (816) 460-2400; Fax: (816) 531-7545
Email: mark.johnson@dentons.com
Joshua A. Block [admitted pro hac vice]
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 549-2593
email: jblock@aclu.org
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 105 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 3

Certificate of Service
I certify that, on March 10, 2015, the foregoing document was served on counsel for all
defendants per the Courts ECF system.
/s/ Stephen Douglas Bonney