Brooks G. Severson
How Judge Severson rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Severson
Brooks G. Severson became a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Kansas in August 2023, succeeding Kenneth G. Gale. She previously practiced civil litigation in Wichita and earned her law degree from Washburn University School of Law.
Judge Severson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Severson's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Standing Order 26-04: Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order 26-01: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Standing Order 25-04: Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 25-03: Suspension of Local Rule 79.4 for Civil Sealed Files ↗
- Standing Order 2021-1: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Severson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Severson permitted amendment while reserving the separate question of subject matter jurisdiction for later motion practice.
“This ruling addresses only whether Plaintiff may amend her pleading; it does not resolve, and is not intended to resolve, any question of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
Procedural preferences
Severson protected trial counsel from deposition where the requesting parties had not shown that ordinary discovery could not obtain the needed facts.
“Defendants may use ordinary discovery for Plaintiff’s legal and factual contentions; they have not shown that a specific fact unavailable elsewhere requires counsel’s deposition.”
Severson retained an audit stay but required regular reports and warned against an indefinite pause.
“The Court will not maintain the stay for a lengthy or indefinite period”
Severson denied a discovery stay while a dismissal motion was pending where other defendants remained and the requested records would still be sought from the moving defendant. Counsel had also skipped the required pre-motion discovery conference, although the ruling rested on the merits.
“a stay would merely delay the discovery, not avoid it altogether – meaning the requested discovery is not wasteful or unduly burdensome.”
In Obaid, Severson denied a late answer amendment because the employer did not show diligence in obtaining the proposed counterclaims’ factual basis before the scheduling deadline. She did not reach the separate Rule 15 arguments.
“Because Ainstein has not established good cause, the Court need not reach the parties’ Rule 15 arguments concerning prejudice, bad faith, or futility.”
Cautions
Severson denied sealing because the movant had not shown a substantial interest that outweighed public access to records central to the case.
“Plaintiff has failed to establish in his motion to seal any substantial interest in depriving the public access to the records at issue.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 112) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition of Plaintiff’s Trial Counsel (Doc. 138) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 139) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 140) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply or, in the Alternative, for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (Doc. 147) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion (Doc. 91) is GRANTED while Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 94) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 191) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay (Doc. 12) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” (Doc. 94) and ‘Motion to Add Defendants ModivCare Solutions, LLC and Thrive Therapy of Kansas, LLC’ (Docs. 94, 95) are DENIED without prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Transfer Place of Trial (Doc. 9) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Motion to Supplement the Record and Motion for Leave to File Medical Records Under Seal” (Doc. 11) DENIED while the duplicative motion (Doc. 12) is DENIED as moot.”
“Motion for Exemption from Payment of PACER User Fess” (Doc. 17) is DENIED.”
“The Court thus GRANTS in part the Motion for Sanctions filed by Defendants Staci LeAnn Fruth and Skip O’Dell Adams.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by the United States Marshal (Doc. 5) is GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear via Telephone or Video Conference at Non-Evidentiary Hearings (Doc. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 90) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the rulings set forth herein.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 119) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled assigned records include one Social Security consent case and four criminal duty matters. This small, selected set is not a representative caseload sample.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, not for Judge Severson: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 967 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 225 | 4.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 83 | 18.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 967 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 912 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 909 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,063 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,180 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,884 | 20.7 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Severson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Severson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Severson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace