David J. Waxse
How Judge Waxse decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a late-filed criminal pretrial motion, Waxse runs the full four-factor Pioneer excusable-neglect analysis rather than rejecting it mechanically -- but he weights prejudice to the opposing party and the proximity of trial heavily, and treats a movant's own change of legal strategy as a reason 'within his reasonable control' that does not excuse the delay. Practical lesson: bring suppression and other Rule 12(b)(3) motions by the deadline; a tactical reassessment after the cutoff, even two months out and filed in good faith, will not establish excusable neglect when trial is near.
“Defendant Holliday admitted at the hearing that the reason for the delay was based on his initial belief that such a motion would not be successful... The reason for the delay was thus well within his reasonable control. The factor weighs against defendant Holliday... Considering all the factors in total, the Court finds that defendant Holliday has not shown excusable neglect.”
On suppression, Waxse looks past the formal absence of express questioning to the substance of a custodial encounter: a 'deft and subtle' but deliberate effort to elicit inculpatory statements without Miranda warnings is treated as interrogation and the statements are suppressed -- a conclusion the reviewing district judge called a close call but adopted in full. Practical lesson: with Waxse, the functional reality of an in-custody interaction controls the Miranda analysis, not whether officers framed their words as questions.
“I agree that the recorded conversations demonstrate that defendant was subjected, while in custody, to a deft and subtle, but nevertheless deliberate and clear unwarned police interrogation designed to avoid the officer's Miranda obligations while eliciting inculpatory statements from the defendant for use in the pending prosecution.”
Procedural preferences
On the parties' 636(c) consent, Waxse presided over counseled civil cases all the way through dispositive motions and trial, deciding summary judgment himself in detailed (12-27 page) opinions. Practical lesson: in a consent case before Waxse, expect him -- not a district judge -- to set the schedule, decide summary judgment, and try the case.
“CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge and Order - Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse for all further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 10/6/09.”
Cautions
On discovery disputes Waxse enforces the meet-and-confer requirement strictly: he will deny a protective-order motion without prejudice for failure to make reasonable efforts to confer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and D. Kan. Rule 37.2 before filing, directing the parties to confer and refile if needed. Practical lesson: actually confer and document it before bringing a discovery motion to Waxse.
“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying without prejudice 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order... Before filing another motion for a protective order, Plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to confer with Defendants regarding the disputed deposition. If the parties are still unable to reach an agreement, Plaintiff may submit a revised motion for protective order in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and D. Kan. Rule 37.2.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion for turnover of funds N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to suppress N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to join pretrial motion N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED plaintiff's Motion for Turnover of Funds (Doc. 45) is granted. Defendants shall deliver to plaintiff all net proceeds of the sale of Wolf Creek Marketplace inventory, which the record before the Court indicates is in an amount exceeding $80,000, within seven days of the entry of this Order”
“Both the government and defendant object in part to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation with respect to disposition of defendant's motions to suppress (docket entries 55 and 56)... I hereby approve and adopt the thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation (docket entry 53) for the reasons given therein by Magistrate Judge Waxse. The objections raised are overruled. Specifically, with respect to suppression of the statements made by defendant while being transported to the federal courthouse... I agree that the recorded conversations demonstrate that defendant was subjected, while in custody, to a deft and subtle, but nevertheless deliberate and clear unwarned police interrogation designed to avoid the officer's Miranda obligations”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Holliday's Request for Leave to Join Pretrial Motion (ECF No. 423) is DENIED”
“the Government's Motion to Strike for Failure to Comply with Scheduling Order (ECF No. 438) is GRANTED”
District Judge Julie A. Robinson's order (read in full) recounting that Waxse's R&R (Doc. 8, 2013-08-05) recommended dismissal of this pro se IFP action -- naming President Obama, members of Congress, and several courts -- for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3) and under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (failure to state a claim) and (iii) (monetary relief against immune defendants); the Court overruled the plaintiff's objection and adopted the R&R on 2014-03-06. Screening dismissal on no party motion; excluded from motion stats. (This particular order also imposes a courthouse-access restriction after repeated abusive conduct at the clerk's office.) Signer is Robinson.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 447 days (N = 17).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 3 days (N = 5).
Not exhaustively enumerated. docket shows Waxse as the assigned (consent) judge across ERISA/labor (Boilermaker, Berk, Educational Credit), civil-rights/employment (Eckman, National Alliance, Lee v. Orion), contract (Boeger, A.J. Plastic, Meitler, Foreclosure Management), insurance (Nationwide), personal-injury / product-liability (Murphy, Cathey, Kimmel, Lang, Miller), and telecom (Verizon Wireless) cases, 2003-2012. Durations below are computed for 17 terminated consent cases.